[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8602-S8617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Nebraska might 
inquire from the managers of the bill as to the status of the Ag 
appropriations bill.
  I had the false impression earlier that there were not many matters 
to be resolved. I would simply observe the obvious, that not a great 
deal has taken place since noon when we had some votes. I would just 
like to know, for the schedule of the Senator from Nebraska, if the 
managers could advise as to the status of negotiations going on, 
whatever they are. What are the remaining matters of controversy on the 
Ag appropriations bill, which I thought had been so ably managed out of 
the committee by the managers of the bill, that we probably were down 
to not a great many contentious issues.
  We have not had a vote since noon, and since I have been around here 
a long time, I know I get the signal when you do not vote from noon 
until 5 o'clock in the afternoon, that means we might not vote by 8 or 
9 o'clock tonight. I know that my friend from Mississippi has been 
struggling with this bill. The Senator from Nebraska has had some 
interest in some side issues that have basically been resolved. I 
inquire of the managers of the bill if they could enlighten this 
Senator as to what likely might happen the rest of the waking hours 
today or in the evening.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, my impression 
is that we are making progress in negotiating some proposed amendments 
with various Senators. There is a likelihood that we can resolve most 
of these issues without rollcall votes. There probably will be a vote 
on final passage, a rollcall vote on final passage. Senators can be 
assured of that. Depending upon how the negotiations go over the next 
several minutes, we should know soon about how many votes are likely to 
be required before we finally dispose of the bill.

  I think we have made good progress and I am encouraged we will be 
able to complete this bill today sometime. I hope we do not have to go 
into the evening tonight. I see no justification for that. We cannot 
control that. If some Senator wants to talk about an amendment, he or 
she can start talking and, unless we have 60 votes to cut off debate, 
we cannot stop them. But I do not see that as happening. I think things 
are progressing in a way that will lead us to conclude this bill 
sometime this afternoon.
  Mr. EXON. I certainly appreciate that optimistic report from my 
friend. That would mean the Senator from Mississippi holds out the hope 
we maybe would have final passage by 6 o'clock? Is that a fair 
assumption on the part of the Senator from Nebraska?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I do 
not predict any particular time. I am hopeful we will be able to 
complete action sometime this afternoon, certainly before evening.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, I suggest if you have plans after 6 o'clock, 
cancel them. We have been here since 12 clock without one single 
amendment being offered, without anything happening. As the Senator 
from Mississippi said, a lot of negotiations are going on. I assume 
some progress is being made. But we have about four pretty contentious 
amendments and I do not know whether they are resolvable or not. If 
they are not, obviously each one of them is going to require a 
rollcall.
  We have a number of other amendments that we could offer right now 
that have been cleared but, as I say, we have four or five that are 
pretty contentious. I do not know whether any progress is being made. 
But, if it is not, we are obviously going to be here for a while.
  Mr. EXON. I thank both of my friends. I find myself in a similar 
position they are from time to time. It is very frustrating to manage 
bills on the floor of the Senate: Nobody offers any amendments; nothing 
is accomplished.
  I wondered about this earlier, since we have not voted since noon. As 
far as I know, no amendments have been offered since noon. I would 
simply say, we get into these ruts from time to time. I am certainly 
not blaming either of the managers of the bill. They are the ones who 
have been here. It is most frustrating on their part. I was simply 
making inquiry to maybe jar things along, to help the managers of the 
bill. I know they are trying to break the deadlock.
  I hope it takes place, and I appreciate their frankness with regard 
to what I think is a rather dark prospect for early resolution of these 
matters this afternoon. I hope we can dispose of them sometime during 
the daylight hours.
  I thank the managers of the bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved by 
unanimous consent an amendment to reauthorize USDA's authority to allow 
seasonal base plans under Federal milk marketing orders. Producers in 
Wisconsin have no quarrels with seasonal base plans but they want 
assurances that they will not exacerbate what they believe to be an 
already discriminatory pricing structure within Federal orders. Farmers 
in Wisconsin seek assurances that seasonal base plans for milk 
marketing orders are neither intended to nor will have the effect of 
increasing milk prices or production on an average annual basis. Mr. 
President, I ask the managers of H.R. 3603, Is it their understanding 
that seasonal base plans under milk marketing orders will increase 
neither overall prices levels nor milk production in orders in which 
they are implemented?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin is correct. 
The seasonal base plans reauthorized by this bill are merely intended 
to level production and prices over the year to stabilize the market 
and are not intended to provide any price enhancement or production 
incentives, measured on a yearly basis, to dairy farmers in those 
orders. The Secretary of Agriculture should administer any seasonal 
base plans consistent with that understanding.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, that is my understanding as well. 
Seasonal base plans are merely a stabilization tool, not a price 
enhancement mechanism, and should be administered as such.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues.


                 Northern Plains Policy Research Center

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a matter of some 
importance to the Northern Great Plains and my State of North Dakota 
with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee. I note their presence on the floor, and ask if they would 
be willing to engage in a colloquy at this time.
  Mr. DORGAN. I too would appreciate the ability to discuss the bill 
before us with the distinguished Senators from Mississippi and 
Arkansas.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would be pleased to discuss this bill with the 
Senators from North Dakota.

[[Page S8603]]

  Mr. CONRAD. First, let me thank the chairman and ranking member for 
putting together this important piece of legislation. They have an 
extremely difficult task balancing many important programs funded in 
this bill in the context of a very difficult funding situation. I know 
the committee receives many requests each year for worthwhile projects, 
and of course budget restraints make it impossible to fund all those 
projects.
  One of the projects I believe the Senators considered this year was 
the development of a Northern Plains policy research center. As the 
Senators know, research models currently available provide important 
information to farmers and others in rural America regarding issues 
that affect rural economies. Unfortunately, the data collected through 
current research models, as valuable as it is, does not capture the 
special characteristics of Northern Great Plains agriculture.
  Mr. DORGAN. I share the sentiments expressed by my colleague, and 
also would like to commend the Senators for the work they have done 
with this legislation. I would like to offer a few additional thoughts 
on the proposed Northern Plains policy research center. This center 
would conduct a wide range of policy-related research and outreach 
activities focused on policy changes for agricultural producers, 
agribusiness firms, and the rural economies of the Northern Plains 
States. The center would identify and evaluate alternative policies for 
Northern Plains commodities and value-added products; evaluate the 
impact of policies on international competitiveness, on rural business 
development, and on farm structure and sustainability; and examine the 
impact of cross-border policy inconsistencies in North America and 
strategies to improve export opportunities.
  As the Senators know, these are not easy times for rural America. The 
center would play a critical role in the economic vitality of Northern 
Plains States. Would the chairman and ranking member be willing to 
indicate their thoughts on the establishment of a Northern Plains 
policy research center?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from North Dakota is correct when they say 
this was one of the many issues considered by the committee this year. 
I agree that the data provided by the proposed center would be valuable 
to Northern Plains States. Unfortunately, the committee's funding 
allocation did not allow us to provide funding.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I agree with the chairman's assessment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman and ranking member be willing to 
indicate whether they would support the USDA using funds provided in 
this bill for markets, trade, and policy research under the Competitive 
Grants Program to develop such a center?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say to the Senator that I would encourage USDA to 
assist in establishing a Northern Plains policy research center using 
funds provided in this bill, as the Senator indicated.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I share the view expressed by my colleague from 
Arkansas. I would just add that the committee expects the Department to 
consider only those applications judged meritorious when subjected to 
the established review process.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senators for their support and for their 
comments.
  Mr. DORGAN. I also want to express my deep thanks to Senator Cochran 
and Senator Bumpers.


   Rural Telemedicine and Distance Learning Services Grant and Loan 
                                Program

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senators be willing to engage in 
a colloquy regarding the Rural Telemedicine and Distance Learning 
Services Grant Program at this time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate the subcommittee's support for the Rural 
Telemedicine and Distance Learning Services Grant Program, and am 
pleased to see that the subcommittee has provided $10 million for this 
important program. In 1993, the University of North Dakota School of 
Medicine and Health Sciences made a major commitment to the education 
and training of rural and frontier health care providers. To support 
this commitment, the school invested considerably in distance education 
technology in the form of satellite transmission equipment, upgraded 
telecommunications equipment, and advanced computer networks to develop 
the North Dakota Health Education Network. This network is an important 
component of the overall health education communication program that 
serves the State of North Dakota. However, the system would better 
serve educators, students, and the citizens of North Dakota if it had 
access to additional computer technology, two-way video technology, 
additional satellite downlink sites, and funds for additional medical 
and medical education programs.
  I wish to make the subcommittee aware that the University of North 
Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences may submit an application 
for a rural telemedicine and distance learning grant to accomplish the 
additional activates I just described. Do the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee agree that this grant 
application, if submitted, would be appropriate for consideration under 
the Rural Telemedicine and Distance Learning Services Grant Program?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree that it would be appropriate for USDA to 
consider this application, if submitted, and I encourage the Department 
to give full consideration to an application for a rural telemedicine 
and distance learning grant from the University of North Dakota. 
Additionally, I expect the Department to consider only applications 
judged meritorious when subjected to the established review process.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I share the chairman's view.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senators for their support.


                     grants to broadcasting systems

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture 
appropriations report references a Grants to Broadcasting Systems 
Program that I would like to discuss with the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Mr. Lugar, and with the Senator from North 
Dakota, Mr. Conrad, who was the original sponsor of the program when it 
was authorized in the 1989 Rural Development Partnership Act.
  It is my understanding that the program statutorily restricts 
eligibility for the program to statewide, private, nonprofit public 
television systems whose coverage is predominantly rural. In order to 
further clarify the statute, a new provision was added at my request to 
the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 [FAIR] 
Act that defined statewide as having a coverage area of not less than 
90 percent of the population of a State and not less than 80 percent of 
the rural land area of the State. Is my understanding of the statute 
correct?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes, the Senator from Oregon is correct. The new provision 
became effective upon enactment of the FAIR Act on April 14, 1996.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Am I correct, then, in assuming that an applicant that 
meets the statutory eligibility criteria of the program as it was 
amended by the act would be considered eligible for the program upon 
the date of the act's enactment?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is 
correct. In addition, given the clear statutory eligibility 
requirements of this particular program, I can see no reason why 
eligibility could not be determined in the application process.
  Mr. CONRAD. As the original sponsor of the provision that authorized 
the program in the Rural Development Partnership Act of 1989, I commend 
the Senator from Oregon in his efforts to not only further define the 
statute, but also to clarify the effective date of eligibility for 
applicants for fiscal year 1996 funding. It is my understanding that 
the definitional clarification offered by the Senator to the 1996 farm 
bill will not significantly increase the number of eligible applicants 
for the program. In that regard, I am providing for the Record a letter 
from America's Public Television Stations [APTS] which provides a list 
of those public television systems that, given the amended statutory 
criteria, would be eligible for the program. I ask unanimous consent 
the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S8604]]


                                                  America's Public


                                          Television Stations,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1996.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: I am writing in response to your 
     request for assistance in identifying public television 
     stations that may be eligible for the ``Grants to 
     Broadcasting Systems'' program administered by the United 
     States Department of Agriculture.
       As I understand, to be eligible for the program a public 
     television licensee must be a private, non-profit entity that 
     provides statewide coverage that is predominantly rural. 
     Based on a copy of the states considered ``rural'' by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the statutory definition of 
     statewide coverage as outlined in your letter, the following 
     public television licensees would meet the statutory 
     eligibility criteria:
       Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation,
       Prairie Public Broadcasting, Inc., North Dakota,
       Oregon Public Broadcasting, and
       Vermont ETV, Inc.
       Please let me know if I can provide you with any further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David J. Brugger,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CONRAD. My colleagues are aware that I serve on both the Senate 
Budget and Agriculture Committees, and that I have long been concerned 
about efficiency in Government. One effective method of reducing 
Government administrative expenses is writing regulations only when 
interpretive guidelines are necessary. In the case of the Grants to 
Broadcasting Systems Program, the statute, as amended, clearly speaks 
for itself, and the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon 
clarifying the definition of statewide does not change the program 
substantively. Finally, I would like to associate myself with the 
statement by the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that there 
should be no reason why eligibility for this program could not be 
determined in the application process.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from North 
Dakota and Indiana, and assume that the USDA will be attentive to the 
discussion that we have had with regard to this program.


                           amendment no. 4997

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased that the managers of the 
bill have agreed to accept the amendment which I offered on behalf of 
myself and Senator Mikulski to continue three important research 
programs at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. My amendment 
restores $458,700 to the Regulation of Chilling Injury By Polyamines 
and Membranes in Apple, Tomato, Squash, and Pepper Program; $240,000 to 
the production and evaluation of tissue cultured fruit crops; and 
nondestructive sonic sensing of firmness and/or condition of apples and 
other agricultural commodities. These programs are critical to growers, 
to maintaining a nutritious and safe food supply for our consumers, to 
Beltsville's mission and to the Department's overall research 
objectives. I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member for their support and help with this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
Agricultural appropriations bill before the Senate. I commend the 
chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work 
on this bill and I thank them for their efforts.
  The bill before us includes a number of very important items. While 
the legislation is replete with programs which are of great benefit for 
the Nation as a whole, there are a number of provisions which are 
especially critical to Montana. And I'd like to address those issues 
right now.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the bill contains adequate funding 
for the animal damage control activities conducted by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. For livestock producers this is a vital 
program. And in Montana and the other Western States which are home to 
the reintroduction of wolves this program is essential--to both the 
producers in the affected region and to the wolves.
  In the area of research I am pleased that the Senate mark has funded 
the Agricultural Research Service at a level above the level of 
appropriations for 1996. I feel that is appropriate. The Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 laid the foundation for 
a transition to dramatically decreased Federal involvement in 
agriculture production. That transition will result in a greater need 
to be competitive in agricultural production. Research holds the key to 
enhancing that competitiveness.
  The research conducted and supported by USDA will help ensure that 
American agriculture continues the success that has characterized this 
industry over the past century. One facility which will play a role in 
this research effort is the Center of Excellence which is being 
established in Sidney, MT. I am pleased that the report language 
encourages the direction of adequate resources to this center.
  This bill also provides for the continued funding of a number of 
research efforts which are underway in Big Sky country. These efforts 
which are largely cooperative efforts engaged in with other 
institutions will yield the technological advances which will carry 
Great Plains agriculture into the 21st century.
  But Mr. President, it is important to note that there is one item 
which is not completely provided for in this bill. While I recognize 
the chairman's desire to avoid revisiting the farm bill, there is 
considerable need for a technical corrections package, but that package 
has not been forthcoming. And I am uncomfortable waiting until next 
year to repair some of these problems.
  In one instance--regarding the payment rate for barley producers--
there is an inequity which has not been totally resolved. While the 
initial payment rate projections for all commodities have been reduced 
from their initial projected levels, through no fault of their own, 
barley producers were dealt an exceptionally hard blow. Their payment 
levels which were lower than most commodities to begin with were 
dramatically impacted by calculations predicting the economic effect by 
0/85 program acreage enrollment.
  While this program had an effect on all commodities, due to high 
enrollment of barley acres it had a far greater negative impact on the 
barley payment rates than on other commodity rates.
  So the barley producers have come to their Senators--those of us from 
barley producing regions of this Nation--and asked for our assistance. 
I want to give them the fair treatment they deserve.
  I would thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
assistance in reaching agreement on an amendment to repair this. But I 
would ask that this issue--this question of fairness for all 
commodities--be considered for further refinement in the conference. I 
think we can find a better solution to this issue and I look forward to 
working with the conferees on that effort.
  Mr. President, I would conclude my remarks by urging my colleagues to 
support this bill--with the change I have mentioned. And I thank the 
managers for their work on this matter.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a very important bill for my State 
of California as we are the number one ranking agricultural State in 
the U.S.
  While there are many issues addressed in this bill that are important 
for my State, I would like to highlight three California specific 
issues:


                  Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research

  I am pleased that the Senate agreed to my request of an additional $1 
million for methyl bromide alternatives research.
  Methyl bromide is critically important to California agriculture for 
control of pre-plant and post-harvest pests, and is to date, the only 
cost-effective material for controlling a variety of soil-borne 
pathogens and weeds that can seriously impact crop yields. These uses 
are particularly significant for commodities such as strawberries, 
almonds, walnuts, raisins, and numerous other field and row crops.
  Methyl bromide was listed as a Class I ozone depleting sub- stance in 
December 1993, and according to Section 602 of the Clean Air Act, it 
must be withdrawn from production, importation and distribution in the 
U.S. by the year 2001.
  My ``Sense of the Senate'' on methyl bromide included in the farm 
bill sent a clear message to the U.S. Department of Agriculture that 
research into alternatives to methyl bromide must be a top priority.
  The additional $1 million will bring the total up to $14.889 in 1997.


                                Avocados

  I support the concurrence of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
with

[[Page S8605]]

the House report language regarding the regulation of importation of 
Mexican avocados.
  Last year the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service issued a proposed rule governing the 
importation of Mexican Hass avocados into the United States. The 
proposed rule would allow Hass avocados to be imported into the 
Northeastern United States during the winter months of November through 
February.
  California avocado growers have expressed their continued concerns 
that the USDA proposed rule inadequately protects their industry from 
harmful pests or disease that imported avocados may carry.
  Importation of Mexican avocados has been prohibited for over 80 years 
because of the presence of at least nine known quarantined pests of 
economic significance. If pest-infested avocados are allowed into the 
United States, not only avocados but other crops such as citrus, 
apples, peaches and pears will be placed at risk.
  In light of new scientific data which indicates that the incidence of 
avocado pests in Mexico is significantly higher than previously 
thought, it is very important that the Department of Agriculture 
determine whether the original data it relied on is sound and complete. 
If the Secretary cannot make this determination, I urge the Department 
to reopen the rulemaking record on the proposed rule, and undertake the 
procedures stated in the House report language before issuing a final 
rule.


               Fresh-frozen Chicken Labelling Compromise

  National poultry producers have in the past always put fresh labels 
on frozen chickens. They freeze their chicken rock solid, label it 
fresh, transport it across the U.S., thaw it out locally, and sell it 
to consumers as if it had never been frozen.
  As the author of the Truth in Poultry Labeling Act, I have for years 
worked to disallow the use of the fresh label where a poultry product 
has been previously frozen.
  Last year, after many years of public debate, we achieved a hard-
fought victory for consumers when the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
promulgated a common sense rule on labeling fresh and frozen poultry. 
The rule which had been scheduled to take effect this August sets out 
three labeling categories: fresh poultry products which have never been 
chilled below poultry's freezing point--26 degrees Fahrenheit--would be 
labelled ``fresh''; 2) poultry products which have been chilled below 
26 degrees but above 0 degrees would be labelled ``hard chilled'' or 
``previously hard chilled''; and 3) poultry products which have been at 
0 degrees or below would be labelled ``frozen'' or ``previously 
frozen.''
  I believe that the implementation of the USDA-promulgated rule would 
eliminate consumer confusion, save consumers millions of dollars in 
premiums paid for frozen poultry they believe is fresh, and further 
restore consumer trust in the integrity of food labels.
  However, language was included in the 1996 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill, that blocked implementation of the rule. My attempt to remove the 
language in order to allow USDA implementation of the rule was voted 
down by a vote of 31 to 68.
  Since then, industry and consumer groups have reached a compromise 
which, while not perfect, is a significant step forward.
  The compromise included in this bill is based on the requirement that 
the Department of Agriculture issue a revised final regulation based on 
a compromise that is supported by industry and many consumer groups.
  The key positive development is the agreement that only poultry which 
has not been cooled below 26 degrees Fahrenheit can be labelled 
``fresh.'' While this is a very significant step forward, I remain 
concerned about the clear labelling of products that are cooled to 
temperatures below 26 degrees but above 0 degrees Fahrenheit. The 
compromise would not require these products to bear any specific 
alternative labelling.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to commend subcommittee Chairman 
Cochran for his work on the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 1997. This bill provides funding for all the activities under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, except for the U.S. 
Forest Service. It also funds the activities of the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Farm 
Credit System.
  This has been one of the most difficult years to date and I 
congratulate Senator Cochran for his leadership in working through the 
difficult decisions in crafting this bill. In particular, Chairman 
Cochran and his staff are to be commended for the clarity that this 
bill provides for the budget of the Food and Drug Administration. That 
accomplishment required countless hours of hard work, but is just the 
sort of good government effort we have come to expect from the 
subcommittee chairman and the staff working under his direction.
  FDA's core mission is to protect the health of the American people. A 
critical part of FDA's core mission is to provide Americans with timely 
access to drugs, medical devices, and food technologies that can 
improve public health. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
requires FDA to review and approve or deny petitions and applications 
for foods, drugs, and medical devices within specified timeframes. Yet, 
FDA routinely ignores its statutory deadlines. According to the 
agency's own numbers, FDA, on average, fails to review applications and 
petitions for every FDA-regulated product category within the 
prescribed timeframes. FDA's failure to comply with its statutory 
deadlines hurts patients and consumers waiting for market introduction 
of new therapies and technologies that can significantly improve public 
health. The report accompanying this bill, like similar directives from 
the House, makes clear the congressional expectation that FDA protect 
public health by performing product reviews within the timeframes 
prescribed by law.
  This bill also directs FDA to complete several rulemakings that have 
been pending at the agency for as many as 6 years. Although I, like my 
colleagues, oppose overregulation, I do appreciate the need for 
regulations required to protect public health. Currently pending at FDA 
are several rulemakings that have fallen victim to unreasonable agency 
delay. FDA has identified each of these rulemakings as agency 
priorities. Yet, the agency's record of follow-through on these 
rulemakings is terribly lax. I commend subcommittee Chairman Cochran 
for including language in this bill that directs the agency to complete 
rulemakings necessary for the protection of public health without 
unreasonable delay.
  During fiscal year 1997, this Senator will be closely watching FDA's 
performance. It is my hope that the agency will heed congressional 
directives to comply with statutory review times, as well as complete 
action on several rulemakings that the agency has identified as 
important for the protection of public health. Regrettably, over the 
last few years FDA does not have an impressive record of responsiveness 
to Congress. If FDA's failure in these areas continues, it is my 
expectation that the committee will revisit the issue with the 
intention of compelling FDA compliance with its statutory obligations.
  Timely access to new therapies and technologies can significantly 
enhance public health. FDA must meet the requirements of the Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act in its review of petitions and applications.
  I am grateful that language concerning the regulation of commercial 
transportation of equine to slaughter is included. The committee urges 
the Department to expeditiously act to implement this regulation. Often 
these horses are transported for long periods, in overcrowded 
conditions, and often in vehicles that have inadequate head room. The 
implementation of regulations would allow horses to get to a slaughter 
facility safely and as quickly as possible with the least amount of 
stress to the animal.
  Again, Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Cochran on his 
leadership in developing a well balanced bill that addresses food 
safety, research, nutrition, conservation, market promotion, and 
development, and rural development.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the fiscal year 
1997 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food 
and Drug

[[Page S8606]]

Administration, and Related Agencies. This bill, as reported by the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $54,276,792,000 in total 
obligational authority for the coming fiscal year. This amount is 
$1,224,755,000 more than provided in the House bill, but it is 
nevertheless $4,040,522,000 below the President's request and nearly 
$10 billion below the amount provided for fiscal year 1996.
  This bill provides funding necessary to support a wide variety of 
programs that are very important to all Americans. These programs 
include food and nutrition programs, environmental protection and 
conservation, rural development, export promotion, assurance that we 
have a safe food and drug supply, and research and education programs 
necessary for the production of agricultural products and equally 
important to consumers of those products. In fact this bill provides 
funding for all programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, except 
the Forest Service, and also includes funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
  While West Virginia may not reach the levels of traditional farm 
commodity production of some states in the Midwest or other regions of 
the country, this bill is very important to my state. West Virginia is 
on the cutting edge of new methodologies in aquacultural production for 
species that thrive in cool and cold water environments. There is a 
growing demand for these products and it is vitally important that we 
develop the tools and methods to increase production to meet this 
demand. This bill helps us to achieve that goal.
  Conservation is important to all Americans. Without proper 
conservation practices, erosion would sweep our prime farmland into 
rivers and streams. Water quality would suffer, aquatic species would 
fail, and community costs for clean water would escalate. Proper 
conservation practices also mean better management of water resources 
in order to reduce the threat of floods. Recent events in West 
Virginia, and other states, remind us of the need to invest in flood 
protection and this bill helps forge the relationships necessary 
between federal agencies and local communities to best meet their water 
and soil management needs.
  The Department of Agriculture provides a variety of programs 
important to rural communities. The Rural Development title of this 
bill contains a number of loan and grant programs to provide housing 
assistance, rural business and community development, basic utilities 
such as water and sewer services, and distance learning programs for 
improved rural communication.
  Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture completed Water 2000, a 
study of safe drinking water needs in the United States. I hope 
everyone will take note of the results. Nearly 3 million families, 
representing 8 million people, do not have access to safe drinking 
water. Let me repeat that. Eight million citizens of the United States 
of America do not have access to a reliable source of clean drinking 
water. Every day, every night, millions of Americans can not turn on 
their faucets and drink safe water.
  Regreattably, in my own state of West Virginia, the study reports 
that it would take $162.3 million to clean up and provide potable water 
to approximately 79,000 West Virginians. It would take another $405.7 
million to meet the worsening drinking water supply situation of some 
476,000 West Virginians. Many other states are facing similarly serious 
situations.
  This bill provides nearly $659 million in budget authority for water 
and sewer programs. I am happy to note that this is a great improvement 
from last year's bill and is nearly the amount of the President's 
request. But our House counterparts recently approved their version of 
the FY 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill in which they provided only 
$496,868,000 for water and sewer programs. I urge my colleagues to 
stand firm on the Senate level of funding for these critically 
important programs. The bill also contains provisions to allow the 
transfer of funds from other programs to the water and sewer accounts, 
which represents the broad-based recognition that these services are 
very basic to all our people and deserve our attention.

  I would also like the speak about a provision in the recently passed 
farm bill that involves rural development opportunities, the so-called 
Fund for Rural America. The Fund for Rural America, which is referenced 
in the report accompanying this bill, provides the Secretary of 
Agriculture $100 million directly out of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to use, at his discretion, in a manner designed to assist 
rural Americans. Among the types of programs the Secretary can use 
through this Fund are rural housing, water and sewer loans and grants, 
rural business loans and grants, and a variety of research program 
initiatives.
  Mr. President, this Fund presents the Secretary of Agriculture with 
rare opportunity. Over the past several decades, a number of Federal 
programs have been developed to assist rural America in a variety of 
ways. Unfortunately, budgetary constraints have limited the Secretary's 
ability to focus these programs on specific areas so that they can be 
utilized to their full potential. An unfortunate reality of our current 
fiscal condition is that scarce resources tend to be spread thin.
  The Fund for Rural America gives the Secretary of Agriculture the 
opportunity to showcase what can be done for rural America, given 
adequate resources. There are rural areas throughout the Nation that 
are in desperate need of the types of assistance the Department of 
Agriculture can provide. There are such areas in West Virginia, there 
are such areas in the Western United States, there are such areas along 
the Lower Mississippi River Delta of which both the chairman and 
ranking member managing this bill are very familiar.
  While I recognize the importance of providing the Secretary full 
discretion in how the Fund for Rural America is to be managed, I hope, 
and I believe, he shares my view that this Fund provides the type of 
opportunity I have just described. I am confident the programs 
administered by the Secretary can make a great difference in the lives 
of West Virginians, as well as in the lives of other rural citizens in 
all regions of the country. I hope the Fund for Rural America will give 
us the chance to see exactly what kind of difference it can be.
  Mr. President, there are many other programs in this bill that are 
important. Obviously, food and nutrition are important to us all. Food 
safety and confidence in our drug and blood supply are also vitally 
important to every American. Agricultural trade continues to be a very 
bright star in our Nation's balance of trade. Protection of investors 
in the commodity futures markets is becoming increasingly challenging 
as the market place continues to develop new and innovative forms of 
transactions. All these areas of importance are touched on by programs 
funded in this bill.
  I am pleased to express my support for this bill and I want to 
congratulate the very capable chairman and the equally capable ranking 
member of the Agriculture and Rural Development Subcommittee, Senators 
Cochran and Bumpers, for crafting this bill and bringing it to the 
floor. As is too often the case, I wish we were able to do more to 
increase funding for these important programs beyond the levels 
contained in this bill. However, given all the budget constraints with 
which we are faced, I believe an admirable job has been done. I fully 
expect a strong show of support in Senate passage of this bill, a 
successful conference with the House, and approval by the President.
  I also thank the subcommittee staff for their fine work: Galen 
Fountain and Carole Geagley for the minority, and Rebecca Davies, 
Jimmie Reynolds, and Hunt Shipman for the majority.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I support the agricultural appropriations 
bill that we are considering today and want to commend the chairman, 
the Senator from Mississippi, and the ranking member, the Senator from 
Arkansas, for their work on this important legislation. They and their 
staffs have spent countless hours under enormous pressure trying to 
ensure that discretionary agriculture programs are adequately funded. 
Considering the fiscal constraints with which they have been forced to 
comply, they have done a commendable job.
  The appropriations process is never easy, as the committee faces a 
number

[[Page S8607]]

of difficult choices. For this reason, the bill does contain some 
provisions that are troublesome to me. For example, I regret the 
decision to provide less than full funding for the food safety 
inspection system at the same time the USDA is implementing the new 
science-based meat and poultry inspection system, the hazard analysis 
of critical control points [HACCP]. Also, the potential reduction in 
Federal outlays for lending programs that benefit our Nation's farmers, 
ranchers, and rural communities could jeopardize the rural economy. 
These issues deserve further attention.
  Mr. President, I am not entirely pleased with the shape of this 
legislation. However, I am hopeful that it can be improved in 
conference with the House. Therefore, I urge my colleagues' support of 
the bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, after listening to our debate today, it 
strikes me that the agriculture appropriations bill is really 
fundamental to the heart of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] 
reform initiative that so many of us in the Congress believe is 
drastically needed.
  I think that a majority of Americans would be surprised, perhaps even 
shocked, to learn that the FDA routinely ignores deadlines set forth in 
the law, deadlines for reviews of products vital to public health such 
as approvals of new medical devices or generic drugs.
  The committee, in fact, recognized this disregard of the law and its 
dramatic impact in its report this year. The committee noted in part:

       The Committee expects the FDA to meet statutory review 
     times for the review and approval of various food, drug and 
     device applications and petitions . . . Extensive testimony 
     has been presented about how the delay in approval of new 
     drugs and medical devices has hurt American public health 
     because U.S. patients do not have access to the latest 
     technologies. Also, slow approval times are driving research 
     and manufacturing jobs in these industries overseas, where 
     earlier approvals are routinely expected.

  The committee went on to say:

       The problem is this agency often disregards its statutory 
     obligation to approve or deny various applications and 
     petitions within specified timeframes. As a result, many 
     applications disappear into FDA for years.

  For the edification of my colleagues, I want to point out a few 
examples of statutory mandates which the FDA has failed to meet.
  Section 409(c)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
stipulates that FDA consideration of food additive petitions must 
normally be completed within 90 days. The FDA performance is so 
pathetic in this area that the Department of Health and Human Services 
fiscal year 1997 budget justifications do not even contain 
quantification of the backlog in this area. The FDA report merely 
states, ``The backlog currently includes approximately 300 petitions, 
with 11 classified as `novel or important.' ''
  However, a report by the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight in December 1995 indicated that since 1970 the average time 
to approval of a direct food additive has been at least 20 months.
  It is interesting to note that at the time of the House committee's 
June 22, 1995, hearing on food additives, there were 295 pending food 
additive petitions. Seven percent of them were filed between 1971 and 
1979.
  The story is not much better for drugs and devices.
  For human drugs, the mean approval time for new drug applications 
[NDA's] in 1995 is 25.7 months; that is 428 percent greater than the 
statutory deadline of 6 months.

  For animal drugs, the comparable 1995 figure is 39 months, which is 6 
times the statutory timeframe of 6 months.
  For generic animal drugs, the time is 31 months, 5 times the limit of 
6 months.
  For human generic drugs, the average approval time is 34.2 months, an 
incredible 570 percent greater than the statutory deadline of 6 months.
  Although the pioneer and generic animal drug approvals exceed their 
statutory deadlines by substantial amounts, it is puzzling why the 
agency allocates its resources so that generic animal drugs are 
approved faster than generic human drugs.
  Let me turn now to medical devices.
  Approval of 510(k) applications is running at 137 days on average, 
which is 47 days beyond the statutory 90-day timeframe.
  For pre-market approvals, the 1995 statistic is 276 days, which is 
nearly 100 days beyond the law's 180-day mandate.
  In perhaps the most blatant disregard of congressional directives, 
the Appropriations Committee was forced to note this year that the FDA 
did not even honor the Committee's request for quarterly reports on its 
plans to refocus resources and make a greater priority completion of 
ongoing product reviews.
  Mr. President, I have devoted a good deal of my congressional career 
to study and advocacy of FDA related issues.
  I consider FDA to exemplify what is best in government--and, 
unfortunately, what is worst.
  This agency can work miracles to protect the public health.
  This agency can also go off on a tangent, with a bureaucratic, one-
way/my-way attitude that rivals none in its ability to obfuscate and 
circle the wagons.
  In my experience, FDA responds to much of such criticism by citing 
that it does not have the resources it needs to do the job.
  Mr. President, I will take a back seat to no one in my support for 
adequate funds and facilities for the FDA. As a member of the Labor and 
Human Resources Committee for 18 years, I fought hard for improved 
resources for this agency.
  But, today, the FDA's plaint of inadequate resources is only in part 
truth--in part it is bunk.
  The FDA does, in fact, have the resources it needs to accomplish its 
core mission, such as product review.
  The Appropriations Committee has worked hard to review the FDA's 
accounting in great detail and provide them with necessary funding in 
the bill we consider today.
  What FDA does not have resources for is to self-generate work or 
expand its mission.
  Moreover, the fallacy of the FDA's ``we don't have the resources'' 
defense can be found in this simple question: ``If you don't have the 
resources, why don't you request them?''
  If the agency is serious about product reviews and can't meet 
deadlines, then why don't they seek the resources to do the job?
  Those of us who take a great interest in the FDA have struggled for 
years to find a method to compel the agency to focus its priorities. We 
must find a way to discourage them from adopting that infamous kid-in-
the-candy-store attitude which has led to an ever-expanding empire at 
the expense of meeting statutorily mandated deadlines. The FDA never 
met an issue it didn't like, no matter how small or how large.

  That is the central issue of the debate on FDA reform.
  And as I listen to our debate today, I have realized that the will of 
the FDA follows its resources.
  With the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, the Congress 
provided a new source of income for new drug approvals --industry-
funded user fees--and suddenly new drug approval times are coming down 
dramatically.
  Unfortunately, though, the agency--which during our GATT debate was 
such a staunch defender of the generic drug industry --seems to have 
abandoned its commitment to that industry when you look at the budget 
for next year, which presumes decreases in FTE's for generic drug 
reviews and increases in product approval times.
  That is why we are seeing such a bitter debate today over issues such 
as the Medguide regulations.
  I think that any objective study of Medguide will show that the FDA 
has taken an old regulation off the shelves, dusted it off, and 
attempted to move it forward almost 20 years later.
  When challenged about the initiative, they have resorted to their 
public health defense, exhorting their allies in the Senate to throw up 
the special interest shield, the most common FDA tool to block 
legislative activities the agency dislikes.
  If there is such a pressing public health need for the Medguide 
regulation, then why has it laid dormant for almost 20 years?
  Perhaps the publicity this debate has engendered is the real answer.
  But the bottom line is that the FDA must get serious about using its 
resources more wisely. That would do a

[[Page S8608]]

lot to restore its credibility with the Congress.
  Let me turn now to some specifics in the bill we are considering 
today.
  The legislation contains three technical amendments to the recently 
enacted FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act that the committee 
included on behalf of Senator Gregg and myself.
  The purpose of the Export Act is to increase the opportunities for 
U.S. firms to export their medical products to our trading partners 
around the world. This new law will result in jobs for Americans and 
will help keep our country as the leader in developing new medical 
technologies.
  Consistent with the intent of the new export law, these technical 
amendments, included in the Appropriations Committee mark, would make 
three clarifications. The first is that products which have not been 
approved in the United States may be imported for further processing, 
such as sterilization, and then exported.
  The second change clarifies that FDA-approved insulin, antibiotic 
drugs, and animal drugs which may be exported, subject to section 
801(e)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for other than 
FDA-approved indications need not also meet the labeling requirements 
of section 801(f).
  The final change explains that products exported under section 802 
must, consistent with the requirements of section 201(m), include the 
labeling required by the approving and importing country.
  Next, I would like to discuss briefly the issue of the patent 
extension for the drug lodine that is contained in the House companion 
to this bill. We are all sensitive to the issue of legislating on 
appropriations bills. We all recognize the need to respect the process 
by which authorizing committees develop legislation.

  But given the realities of the legislative calendar, we also know 
there will be very limited opportunities to pass any new free-standing 
bills during the remainder of this session.
  The plain truth of the matter is that between now and adjournment 
there will be extraordinary pressures to attach amendments to any 
active legislative vehicles and many of these will be appropriations 
measures.
  During consideration of the issue related to pharmaceutical patents 
and GATT, the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the request of Senator 
Specter, included a lodine patent extension provision and the bill was 
approved by the committee on May 2. In response to Senator Pryor's 
attempt to attach his version of pharmaceutical patent legislation on 
the Department of Defense authorization bill, S. 1745, I offered the 
Judiciary Committee compromise legislation, further modified by an 
amendment by Senator Specter. This amendment, which was adopted on June 
27 by a 53-45 vote, also included the lodine amendment.
  In my view, should it be considered advisable to retain lodine 
provisions in the agriculture appropriations bill, I believe that the 
language of the Judiciary Committee compromise amendment, already 
passed by the full Senate, is preferable to the House-passed language.
  This is so because some have read the lodine provision adopted by the 
House to suspend the operation of the Bolar provisions of the Hatch-
Waxman Act with respect to this one drug. This is the exception to the 
general rule against patent infringement that allows generic drug 
firms--and only generic drug firms--to test and seek FDA regulatory 
approval for their products prior to the expiration of the patent of 
the pioneer product.
  If this is the correct reading of the House language, the effect 
would be to extend the exclusivity period for lodine for 2 to 5 years 
beyond the 2 years nominally stated in the amendment. Two years should 
mean 2 years, not 5 or 7 years.
  The Senate-passed lodine provision closely parallels the daypro 
provision signed into law. We should retain this approach with lodine 
by adopting the Senate language contained in the DOD authorization.
  I wish to also make a few comments about saccharin. The House bill 
contains a 5-year extension on the ban to prevent FDA taking saccharin 
off the market. The Senate bill provides a 1 year extension for 
saccharin.
  Unless the Congress acts, the FDA will be compelled to enforce the 
mindless zero risk standard imposed by the Delaney Clause and ban 
saccharin.
  While I believe that this matter should be addressed through the 
authorization process and that the Delaney Clauses be repealed, in the 
short term, I believe it prudent to adopt the House's 5-year extension.
  Let me say again that there are strong arguments to be made that an 
appropriations bill is not the best mechanism to legislate on such 
controversial matters as the Delaney Clauses. But some believe that the 
Delaney Clauses are too controversial to address in a comprehensive 
fashion when the FDA reform bill is taken up in the next weeks. This 
raises the question of whether the FDA authorizing statute--the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--can be said to be truly reformed if the 
Delaney Clauses are left intact.

  I know how I come out on that question because I am among those who 
believe that the Delaney Clauses are among the most illogical, 
unwarranted laws on the books.
  In this regard, I must salute our colleagues in the House, who voted 
last night 417 to 0 to do away with the Delaney provision in the 
context of pesticide residues. Our colleagues have much to be proud of 
in their unanimous decision to reject the zero risk stranglehold of 
Delaney with the new reasonable-certainty-of-no harm test.
  It seems to me that the Congress should act favorably on the 
pesticide provision and expeditiously act on the other areas affected 
by Delaney Clauses: food and color additives and animal drug residues.
  Frankly, Congress long ago recognized, based on the established 
science on the issue, that the benefits of saccharin exceed the risk.
  While saccharin in high doses caused tumors in laboratory animals, 
FDA recognized that there is no evidence that this product has harmed 
humans. Despite this, the law would have required FDA to ban the 
product unless the Congress overrode this particular application of the 
Delaney Clause.
  Subsequent to the initial congressional action on this matter in 
1977, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, this moratorium was 
extended by Congress 6 more times, many times at my initiative and with 
bipartisan support.
  Because, to my knowledge, no evidence has come to light that the risk 
of saccharin is any greater than previously thought, I see no more 
reason to ban this product today than existed in 1977. In fact, I 
understand that more recent studies indicate saccharin does not pose 
the cancer risk in animals that it was thought to pose 20 years ago.
  I do see many good reasons to change the Delaney Clause.
  As a realist, I know that some would be tempted to take to the floor 
and debate this at length, so I cannot be certain that this battle will 
be won quickly, or even this year. For that reason, I believe that the 
5-year extension in the House bill is preferable to the 1-year 
provision currently in the Senate bill.
  In closing, Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senators 
Hatfield, Cochran, Byrd and Bumpers, for their hard work in bringing 
forward these FDA provisions and also for their diligence in making 
certain the agency is made more accountable to the public. These are 
the first, and most important, steps in FDA reform.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are prepared now to announce that the 
indications are encouraging, that a number of amendments that have been 
pending and are to be offered have been or are being resolved. We do 
have a couple of amendments that we had hoped could be worked out but 
we do not think can be worked out.
  Senators are deciding now whether to withdraw those amendments, look 
for another vehicle to offer the amendment on later, or offer the 
matters as freestanding legislation. Let me just say, most of these 
issues--I think maybe all of them--involve legislation and really do 
not deal with the funding levels in the bill.
  We also have one other problem that has arisen because, since this 
bill funds the Department of Agriculture, Senators have amendments that 
come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, legislative in 
nature. And

[[Page S8609]]

the Forest Service really is not funded in this bill. The Forest 
Service is funded in the Interior appropriations bill. So we are trying 
to encourage Senators who do have amendments that cannot be accepted on 
this bill, to consider offering them as amendments to the Interior 
appropriations bill or as freestanding bills on another day.
  Having said that, I think it is likely we are going to proceed very 
soon, presenting those amendments, announcing the decision of Senators, 
and voting on those that require rollcall votes.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to my good friend from 
Mississippi. I have a feeling that my amendment, while it comes close 
to his description, I am hoping it is somewhat outside the pale--an 
expression that he, with his cosmopolitan and erudite upbringing, his 
education in another part of the world dear to both of us, would 
understand, the expression, ``beyond the pale.'' So, I might try to 
bring it within the pale of acceptability. Since the managers are not 
too pressed for time, I was thinking, perhaps to give the Reporter of 
Debates a chance to rest a bit, I may suggest the absence of a quorum 
for just a couple of moments so that we might reason together.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, what is the current status of the 
legislation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment before the Senate is 
Brown amendment No. 5002.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment 
be temporarily set aside so that I may speak on the bill in general.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, earlier there was discussion--not 
discussion, a statement on this floor--by a Senator on the Medguide. 
The Medguide issue is an issue that arose in the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee discussion of the Food and Drug Administration 
reform effort.
  Medguide is an attempt by pharmacies and pharmacists to provide 
consumers information relative to the drugs that are prescribed by 
those pharmacists. The industry has attempted in the last few years to 
prepare software which would allow them to prepare leaflets and 
information for distribution to their patients, those seeking to have 
their prescriptions filled at the pharmacies, which would provide those 
consumers with information about the impact of those drugs on their 
health, the dosage, what contraindications might be necessary; in other 
words, warnings as to what the side effects are, warnings to not mix 
these drugs with certain other drugs that the patient may be taking, 
and so forth.
  An example of these are--I hold these up. Here is one from Eckerd, 
``RX Adviser,'' for the drug Novolin. It is easily readable. It 
describes the prescription number, the date on which the prescription 
was filled, the directions to the individual taking the prescription, 
and then it lists how to use this medicine. It is formatted in bold 
type. It has cautions and possible side effects, and it is very 
consumer friendly. It catches your eye. It grabs your attention. It is 
in different colors.

  Here is one from another pharmacy, CVS for Zantac, 300 milligram 
tablet. It again tells the prescription number, the name of the 
individual it is prescribed for, how to take this medication, what the 
uses are, side effects, precautions, notes to the consumer--very 
helpful information.
  I have a whole raft of these that are currently being distributed and 
handed out by pharmacies across the country. In fact, in 1995, it is 
estimated that nearly 65 percent of all patients received this 
information from their pharmacist, up from just 20 percent 3 years ago.
  Now, many in the industry believe we have gone beyond that point. I 
think that is a conservative estimate. Many believe we have already 
reached the 75-percent level of consumers receiving this information, 
which happens to be the goal set by Health and Human Services Healthy 
People 2000 Goal Program. So we are 4 years ahead of schedule with 
private industry. But now along comes the FDA saying: Oh, no. No, no, 
no. We do not trust the professionals to advise those taking these 
medicines to do a competent job to provide necessary warnings, to 
provide appropriate consumer information. We think this is something 
that the Government needs to step in and regulate. And so we, the FDA, 
need to make sure that these consumer information guides which are in 
addition to, by the way, the manufacturer's required printing of all of 
the compounds that go into the drug--all of us have seen those. You get 
your bottle of prescription drugs, and you pull out a piece of paper 
and you extend it out 2, 3, 4 feet and the print is so small that those 
of us over the age of 20 do not have the eyesight to read that. If we 
could read it, we would not understand what it says. And so the 
pharmacies have said let us boil this down into everyday common 
language and make sure the consumers get the right information. But the 
FDA says we do not trust the industry to do that; we need to make sure 
that we have a plan that will ensure that the information given to 
consumers fits our requirements. And by the way, we are going to have 
to approve all of these proposals of information to make sure that it 
is not violating anything that the FDA wants to check. And so they have 
put out these nice, big, thick rules and regulations called 
``Prescription Drug Product Labeling, Medication Guide Requirements, 
Proposed Rule,'' issued on August 24, 1995.
  If you thought it was hard to read and understand the drug 
manufacturer's instructions about drugs, you ought to try reading FDA's 
proposed rule. On and on it goes for page after page--nearly 100 pages 
of fine print now that everybody is going to have to sort through, 
every manufacturer is going to have to sort through, adjust all of 
their information to the Government regulated point size of lettering, 
to the Government regulated headings. They are going to tell you what 
headings you have to use. They are going to tell you what size of type 
you are going to have to use.
  Interestingly enough, the samples that FDA puts out which follow 
their recommended guidelines are only about one-tenth as intelligible 
as the information currently being distributed to the patients when 
they receive their prescriptions. Typical Government bureaucratic 
ineptitude, mediocrity, and obfuscation that we find in Government 
agency after Government agency advising consumers as to how to use a 
product or how not to use a product.

  And so we bring in another Government agency to tell private industry 
what to do, and in telling them what to do they are going to turn a 
readable, consumer-friendly product into your typical Government, IRS, 
unintelligible form of how to do all this.
  Let me find this section here that describes some of the 
requirements:

       Format for Medication Guide.
       The medication guide shall be printed in accordance with 
     all the following specifications:
       A. The letter height or type shall be no smaller than 10 
     points.

  And they point out here that one point equals 0.0138 inches. See all 
these people measuring with a little ruler here, is this greater than 
10 times 0.0138 inches?

       For all sections of the medication guide except the 
     manufacturer's name and address and revision date.

  Interestingly enough, they do not say how big the manufacturer's name 
and revision date are, probably the two most important pieces of 
information are not described here:

       B. The medication guide shall be legible and clearly 
     presented.

  Well, the current industry forms are very legible and very clearly 
presented. But does that satisfy the FDA? Oh, no. Oh, no. It has to be 
printed and legible like the FDA forms that they provide as samples 
which, if anybody cares to look, are illegible and unintelligible.

[[Page S8610]]

 So we are going to go to the Government format for that. On and on it 
goes:

       The words ``Medication Guide'' must appear--

  So forth and so on. And then here is the killer. Here is the killer. 
And this is why people ought to be concerned about FDA sticking its 
head in here where it does not need to. This medication guide has to 
have this verbatim statement.

       This medication guide has been approved by the U.S. Food 
     and Drug Administration.

  And that has to appear on the bottom of every medication guide.
  The whole purpose for FDA reform is because you cannot get anything 
approved at FDA. And so instead of consumers receiving helpful 
information, they are going to be sitting around waiting for month 
after month after month after month or year after year after year for 
FDA to approve the guide that tells them how to use the medicine. Now, 
FDA says: Oh, no. We can handle this without a problem.
  They cannot handle anything else without a problem. Consumers not 
only are unable to get the medications they need because FDA takes 
years to approve it, now they are not even going to be able to get the 
information to use the medication because the FDA once again has to 
approve all of the information.
  On and on this goes with prescription after prescription as to just 
how these advisories should be put together.
  I guarantee you, anybody who has had experience with FDA, anybody who 
has listened to drug manufacturers or medical device manufacturers tell 
the horror stories about getting even the most simple of medical 
devices approved or even drugs that have been tested clinically 
approved, used for years in other countries without problem, yet cannot 
receive approval here in the United States, will quickly realize the 
problem that we are developing here.
  So FDA now will create a whole new bureaucracy. They will create a 
whole new process of making sure they approve all of the Medguide 
statements.
  Now, we took this issue up in committee, and in committee after 
significant discussion it was determined by a majority of members on a 
bipartisan basis--I believe the vote was 13 to 3. Members need to 
understand this is not a politically partisan debate. This is a debate 
between those who want to hold on to the status quo of mediocre, inept 
Government bungling and bureaucracy and those who think that maybe 
private industry has a more efficient, effective way to do it and 
perhaps can even protect the consumer a little more efficiently and 
effectively than FDA has been able to protect the consumer.
  We have gone through several decades now of denying effective 
treatment and drugs and devices to American consumers because FDA does 
not have the capacity to adequately and on a timely basis examine and 
approve or disapprove submittals of either drugs or devices that can 
benefit the consumer. I have a lot of manufacturers that would simply 
say, if they would just call us up and tell us they would disapprove 
it, they would not have to go through this year after year after year 
of inept bureaucratic bungling to determine whether or not our product 
is going to be allowed to be marketed in the United States.
  So, here we have another Big Government stride into a brand new area 
of regulation, regulation that currently is handled at the State level. 
State pharmacy boards traditionally regulate pharmacists, have the 
authority to regulate pharmacists. They have been providing services to 
the patients and consumers for a long, long time in this country.
  We have now an FDA that will, again, issue a regressive regulation 
which will stifle innovation and changes in pharmacy information. We 
have an FDA which will provide a one-size-fits-all, bureaucratically 
uniform style of type, style of heading, style of verbiage. Any of you 
who have to struggle through, as I do every year, trying to read the 
IRS instructions as to how to fill out your income tax will understand 
that somehow Government just cannot seem to get instructions into 
common, everyday language. I am afraid we will see more of that out of 
FDA.
  The most ironic thing here is that people have been pleading with FDA 
for more focus on their necessary items. No one is saying we ought to 
close down FDA. We are simply saying, can you focus more of your 
resources and your effort on the more essential elements of your 
business here? Yet now we are going to take already scarce, depleted 
resources and shift them and divert them from their primary focus of 
providing safety and efficacy for drugs and devices and protecting the 
Nation's food supply, to making sure that the information handed to the 
consumer, which is a duplicate, which is in addition to all the 
requirements that the drug manufacturer has to put in the medicine, 
consumer-friendly information--we now have to make sure this complies 
and gets approval from the Food and Drug Administration. I think they 
ought to spend more time approving drugs, more time approving devices, 
and less time worrying about whether this is 10-point type or 12-point 
type.
  How interesting to note that the advisories that we have examples of 
here are far more readable, far more presentable and far more legible 
than what the FDA, in their regulation, says it ought to be. The last 
thing a pharmacist or a pharmacy wants to do is hand its own customers 
something that is illegible. What they really want to do is hand them 
something that they can read and understand, because if they do that, 
they will come back.
  I get frustrated over this whole process, as you probably can tell. I 
am frustrated that we cannot proceed on meaningful FDA reform when we 
have such a bipartisan consensus on doing this. The vote in the Labor 
and Human Resources Committee was 13 to 3. We had solid support from 
both Democrats and Republicans on the need to do this. Yet, because FDA 
reform is stalled and cannot seem to work its way before the U.S. 
Senate, the Senator from Mississippi, whose committee has jurisdiction 
over the appropriations, took this portion of the proposal, which would 
impose some requirements and restrictions to make sure these private 
advisories comply with what is necessary, and incorporated that 
language in the agriculture appropriations bill. Suddenly we have had 
this big holdup here over whether or not this language ought to be 
here.
  Mr. President, my understanding is that some agreement has been 
reached on a watered down but hopefully still effective change in the 
language, which will be the subject, apparently, of a colloquy that 
will be coming shortly between the chairman of the committee and the 
Senator from Massachusetts. I hope the agreement which is reached is 
not one that the FDA will find another excuse not to implement, because 
my understanding is that the agreement is subject to the approval of 
the Commissioner of the FDA, who is probably the biggest problem we 
have at FDA right now.

  One of the amendments I offered in committee was to limit the terms 
of FDA Commissioners because I think, if there is ever an argument for 
term limitations, it is the current FDA Commissioner and the way that 
agency is being run. Hopefully, we can move forward now with something 
that is of great benefit to the consumers of this country--nearly 65 to 
75 percent now receive these advisories--and not grind ourselves down 
into a bureaucratic excuse for something that does not begin to measure 
up to the advisories that are currently out there. When are we going to 
learn that all wisdom, all professionalism, does not rest in a 
Government agency; that industry has its own, the private sector has 
its own motivations for protecting the consumer? Besides, States have 
the ability, and State pharmacy boards have the ability, to impose some 
reasonable regulations on their own pharmacists and their own 
pharmacies.
  Mr. President, I wish we were debating FDA reform, because it looks 
like we may go another session of Congress without any meaningful 
reforms in a process that denies patients and consumers in this country 
sometimes life-saving drugs.
  The question is asked, what if FDA did not take this time to approve 
some of these medicines? The question also has to be asked, how many 
people have suffered, or perhaps needlessly died, because FDA was not 
able, on a timely basis, to approve life-saving drugs or devices? There 
is a backlog that is staggering at FDA. There is an ineptitude that is 
staggering out there. I do

[[Page S8611]]

not trace it to the good scientists who are working there and 
clinicians who are working there. I trace it to an inept bureaucracy 
which often seems to have motivations beyond the health and safety of 
consumers. I think it is time we did something about it, and I am glad 
we are taking this one small step to benefit the consumers. I 
congratulate the Senator from Mississippi for working out an agreement 
here so we can accept this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the original 
MedGuide provision that was included as part of the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill. The Agriculture Appropriations bill contained the 
language on the MedGuide issue that was overwhelmingly passed by the 
Labor Committee by a vote of 13 to 3 during the markup of S. 1477, the 
FDA reform bill, in March.
  This provision in the Agriculture bill required the Secretary of HHS 
to request, within 30 days after enactment, that national consumer, 
industry and practitioner groups work together to develop a plan for 
the distribution of high quality, helpful consumer information about 
prescription drugs, such as adverse reactions and product combination 
problems.
  It provided the opportunity for the private sector to continue 
building on its marked successes in this area over the last several 
years. By FDA's own survey, the percentage of consumers receiving 
substantial written information about their prescription increased from 
32 percent to 59 percent between 1992 and 1994. There is no reason to 
believe that pharmacists will either suddenly begin to perform this 
task more poorly, nor any reason to think that the goal of 75 percent 
by the year 2000--shared by FDA and professionals practicing pharmacy--
will not be voluntarily achieved, without FDA getting involved.
  It called for an approach to public policy that is flexible, 
sufficiently specific and comprehensive so as to meet consumers' needs, 
and neither promotional nor so technical that it is of no use to the 
consumer. The information has to be legible, comprehensible, and 
accurate.
  This amendment did not do one thing--it did not allow the FDA to 
expend its limited funds to implementing its MedGuide regulation.
  The FDA cannot afford diversions from their mission to review and 
approve quality, and often life-saving, products. This is clear from 
the numerous hearings we have held, reports that have published, and 
complaints we have heard from the FDA itself--``Give us more resources. 
Give us more time to do our job.''
  The FDA regulation would require every pharmacist to provide specific 
information to patients each time they fill a prescription. While FDA 
claims the regulation is voluntary, if 75 percent of consumers are not 
receiving the formatted information by 2000, the regulation becomes 
mandatory.
  Well, there is nothing voluntary about this regulation--pharmacists 
will no longer be able to craft written information to meet individual 
patients' needs if this regulation is imposed. There is also nothing 
voluntary about imposing a $121 million cost annually on pharmacists 
and manufacturers, according to the FDA's own calculation. FDA's 
calculation determined the program would cost individual pharmacies at 
least $1,500 to comply, equaling $106.7 million a year. Manufacturers 
are expected to spend $5,000 to $12,000 per medication guide developed, 
or at least $14.4 million annually.
  And who do you think those costs will be passed on to? The consumer.
  One must also consider that the practice of pharmacy has always been 
regulated at the State level--FDA may not regulate the practice of 
medicine. FDA only has product labeling authority, not the accompanying 
information.
  There is also a great deal of concern that this regulation also has 
not taken into account the expanded liability it imposes on 
pharmacists. Pharmacists not only have the ability to tailor 
information to suit the patient, they are able to phrase--and sometimes 
rephrase--information in a way that the patient understands. Going to a 
one-size-fits-all information standard will defeat this important 
purpose of pharmacy as the pharmacist will be prevented from serving as 
the learned intermediary.
  The provision in the underlying bill would have had the same goals as 
MedGuide: 75 percent consumer receipt by the year 2000; a way to assess 
the effectiveness of any consumer information distribution system; and 
a measure of the quality of the information being distributed. This 
provision would not have simply cut the FDA out of the process--
instead, it provided a 120-day stay of execution from the FDA rule. 
After that, if the private sector failed to respond, the Secretary of 
HHS could proceed with the detailed regulation proposed by the FDA.
  This regulation is not only a poor priority for the Commissioner--he 
has stated it is his No. 1 issue--and an inappropriate use of limited 
funding, it is also beyond the general authority of the FDA. While we 
all would agree that it is important that the consumer get the 
information they need, as their circumstances call for, I don't 
understand how the FDA can believe it is somehow more capable of 
telling Americans what they must, and cannot, know than the pharmacists 
serving consumers on a daily basis.
  Mr. President, I think the FDA has enough to do already without 
breaking new regulatory ground, especially where the private sector is 
already rising to the task at hand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

                           Amendment No. 5003

       (Purpose: To protect the public health)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be laid aside for an amendment that I now send to the desk.
  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 Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5003.

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

       On page 59, line 6, after ``consumers).'' insert:
       ``(b) Goals.--Goals consistent with the proposed rule 
     described in subsection (a) are the distribution of useful 
     written information to 75% of individuals receiving new 
     prescriptions by the year 2000 and to 95% by the year 2006.''
       On page 59, line 16 insert the following: ``(4) contain 
     elements necessary to ensure the transmittal of useful 
     information to the consuming public, including being 
     scientifically accurate, non-promotional in tone and content, 
     sufficiently specific and comprehensive as to adequately 
     inform consumers about the use of the product, and in an 
     understandable, legible format that is readily comprehensible 
     and not confusing to consumers expected to use the product.'' 
     and
       On page 60, line 5, insert after the word ``if'' the 
     following: ``(1)''.
       On page 60, line 8, strike the words ``and begin to 
     implement'' and insert the following: ``and submit to the 
     Secretary for Health and Human Services''.
       On page 60, line 10, strike the words ``regarding the 
     provision of oral and written prescription information.'' and 
     insert the following: ``which shall be acceptable to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services; (2) the 
     aforementioned plan is submitted to the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services for review and acceptance (provided that 
     the Secretary shall give due consideration to the submitted 
     plan and that any such acceptance shall not be arbitrarily 
     withheld); and (3) the implementation of (a) a plan accepted 
     by the Secretary commences within 30 days of the Secretary's 
     acceptance of such plan, or (b) the plan submitted to the 
     Secretary commences within 60 days of the submission of such 
     plan if the Secretary fails to take any action on the plan 
     within 30 days of the submission of the plan. The Secretary 
     shall accept, reject or suggest modifications to the plan 
     submitted within 30 days of its submission. The Secretary may 
     confer with and assist private parties in the development of 
     the plan described in sub-sections (a) and (b).''
       On page 60, line 20 through line 22, strike ``The Secretary 
     shall not delegate such review authority to the Commissioner 
     of the Food and Drug Administration.''
       On page 59, line 7, re-letter sub-section (b) to sub-
     section (c), and on page 59, line 16, re-number subparagraph 
     (4) to subparagraph (5), and on page 59, line 21, re-number 
     subparagraph (5) to subparagraph (6), and on page 59, line 
     23, re-letter sub-section (c) to sub-section (d), and on page 
     60, line 12, re-letter sub-section (d) to sub-section (e).

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to say how pleased I am that we 
have managed to work through our concerns with my friends from 
Mississippi and

[[Page S8612]]

Indiana on the language relating to adequate consumer labeling for 
prescription drugs that is in the Agricultural Appropriations bill. The 
changes that they have graciously agreed to will address my concerns 
that the provisions need to contain safeguards to ensure that the 
voluntary plan developed by organizations representing health care 
professionals, consumers, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, 
database companies, and other interested parties will be adequate.
  I am concerned, however, that when this provision goes to conference 
with the different House language, that all our hard work in coming to 
this agreement may go by the wayside. It is critical that I have the 
word of my friend from Mississippi that the conference not limit the 
authority of the Secretary and the FDA to assure provision of 
information to the public beyond the provisions of section 601 as 
amended.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts, and I can 
assure him that, while I am not able to speak for the entire conference 
committee, I will do my best to reach a compromise on this issue that 
will not place further limits on the authority on the Secretary and the 
FDA with regard to this important public health issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is no objection. We have reviewed 
it, and we thank very much the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
and the Senator from Indiana and others who have worked to negotiate 
this agreement.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just say, the amendment has been 
cleared on this side. It has taken all afternoon to craft this 
amendment in a form which is acceptable to all sides.
  I compliment Senator Kennedy for his tenacity and determination in 
getting this accomplished. It is a very, very worthwhile amendment in 
this Senator's opinion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5003) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor. I 
appreciate the cooperation of all in working through this amendment--
Senator Cochran, Senator Bumpers, Senator Coats and others.
  I will not delay the Senate, but I must say, I will add a word of 
commendation for Dr. Kessler. I have a strong difference of opinion 
about his service in the FDA. The FDA has been a whipping boy, 
particularly in recent times, but I do think if we look at the most 
recent GAO reports, look at the breakthroughs of new drugs getting out 
to the people in this country and look at the assault that has been 
made on the FDA by the tobacco industry and other groups, his service 
will go down as a distinguished one.
  Just a final point, Mr. President. This whole issue really is not 
about bureaucracy, it is about information--useful, readable, 
understandable information about prescription drugs that can make a 
difference in terms of an individual's quality of health.
  Mr. President, we do it with regard to dog food, we do it with regard 
to Wheaties, we do it with over-the-counter drugs. We can do a better 
job.
  I am very hopeful the job will be done through the voluntary systems 
that are being set up now; that it will be given a reasonable time, 
although all of us are very hopeful that will be successful.
  I am grateful to the floor managers for accepting this amendment. I 
thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, has the Kennedy amendment been accepted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 4987

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

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to 
call up amendment No. 4987, which is at the desk. It is the Northern 
Forests Stewardship Act, which is sponsored by me and cosponsored by 
Senators Jeffords, Gregg, Smith, Snowe, Cohen, Moynihan, Kennedy, and 
Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, very briefly, this amendment, which affects 
the Northern Forests of the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine 
especially, makes sure the rights and responsibilities of the 
landowners are emphasized. The primacy of our States, that means very 
much to each of us, is reinforced, the traditions of the region are 
protected, but we have the advantage of using new ways of achieving our 
goals in forestry and the use of our land and ways to do it that did 
not even exist a few years ago. It is a case where we have had 
citizens, landowners, foresters, and everybody else come together with 
a plan that actually works.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
and others who worked with us this afternoon to get this through. I 
yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Leahy to include a revised version of S. 1163, the Northern 
Forest Stewardship Act, in H.R. 3603. I thank my colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his hard work on this legislation, and I 
thank the other cosponsors of the bill for their efforts. I would also 
like to thank Senator Lugar, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and 
the managers of the bill before us, Senator Cochran and Senator 
Bumpers, for their cooperation and acceptance of this amendment.
  Let me state at the outset what this amendment is not because I would 
like to clear up any misconceptions that may exist. This amendment does 
not, in any way, provide the Federal Government with new regulatory 
authority. This amendment does not, in any way, permit the Federal 
Government to intrude, uninvited, upon the affairs of any State. This 
amendment does not, in any way, allow the Federal Government to assume 
control over private timberlands in the Northern Forest region. This 
amendment does not, in any way, impose Federal mandates on the Northern 
Forest States. In actuality, the amendment reaffirms the primacy of the 
Northern Forest States in the management of their forests, and it is 
intended to help the States do what they want to do on these issues. 
That is why the affected States support this bill. A simple reading of 
the legislation will make these facts abundantly evident.
  Six years ago, the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New 
York created the Northern Forest Lands Council to study problems facing 
the Northern Forest region, and to issue recommendations for State and 
Federal policies that would help to maintain the traditional patterns 
of land ownership and use in the region. The council was formed in 
response to public fears of significant conversion of the Northern 
Forest Lands to nonforest uses. These fears had been stoked by the 
attempted sale of Diamond International's timberland holdings by Sir 
James Goldsmith, who had acquired Diamond in a hostile takeover in 
1987.
  It goes without saying that the 26-million-acre Northern Forest 
region is an extraordinary resource. It provides the largest expanse of 
unbroken forestland east of the Mississippi River. These forests 
provide excellent outdoor recreational opportunities, abundant wildlife 
habitat, and breathtaking scenic vistas. But these lands also form the 
foundation of the livelihoods of thousands of people in the region who 
harvest trees from the forest, and who convert the trees into valuable 
products like paper, lumber, and furniture. The Northern Forest is, and 
always has been, a multiple use forest.
  The council, which consisted of representatives from each State and 
from each of the major stakeholder groups with an interest in the 
forest, spent roughly 4 years and millions of dollars collecting and 
analyzing data, consulting with State officials, and holding many 
meetings and discussions with the public throughout the region. The 
council completed its recommendations in September 1994, and then 
disbanded. In its final report, the council requested that the U.S. 
Congress enact legislation to implement its Federal recommendations 
beginning in 1995. This legislation is the culmination of the council 
process, a process, I might add, that fostered very beneficial new

[[Page S8613]]

working relationships between industry, landowners, and the 
environmental community on the critical issues related to our forests.

  The Leahy amendment embodies the latest version of S. 1163. This bill 
has undergone a series of revisions based on numerous comments from a 
diverse collection of individuals, organizations, businesses, and 
States in the region. And I think this bill responds to the opinions 
and recommendations of such a diverse group as well as any one bill 
can. The Northern Forest Lands process has always operated out of a 
strong desire for consensus, and the legislation before us reflects the 
desire of Senators from the Northern Forest region to maintain that 
practice.
  At its most basic, the Northern Forest Stewardship Act is designed to 
help conserve the Northern Forest lands, and its many values, for 
future generations. But unlike some past approaches to resource 
conservation in the Congress, this bill puts States in the driver's 
seat, which is most appropriate in this case because the great majority 
of these lands are privately-owned. In effect, the legislation assigns 
the Federal Government a role as cooperator in the region, consistent 
with the council's recommendations. It authorizes Federal agencies, 
primarily the State and Private Forestry division of the U.S. Forest 
Service, to provide technical and financial assistance to the Northern 
Forest States for activities such as developing benchmarks of 
sustainable forest management, conducting forest research, conserving 
valuable forest lands, and assessing water quality trends in the 
region. But the bill makes clear that this assistance can only be 
provided if the individual States request it. If the States do not 
request it, then no assistance can be provided under this legislation.
  As a region characterized by the private ownership of timberland, the 
legislation is replete with references and provisions reaffirming 
private property rights. The Land Conservation section, for instance, 
prohibits the use of any Federal funds authorized by this legislation 
for State land acquisition projects unless the owner willingly offers 
the property for sale.
  Recognizing the economic importance of the forest to the people who 
live in the region, the Leahy amendment also authorizes technical and 
financial assistance to the States, the forest products industry, and 
local communities to help expand value-added production and create 
sustainable new jobs in the forest products sector.
  Mr. President, as I said before, the basic purpose of this 
legislation is to implement the council's recommendations, and I think 
the bill succeeds on that account. But I want to point out that one 
very important component of the council's report has been necessarily 
omitted from this bill, and that is Federal tax policy.
  The council recognized that Federal taxes can create negative 
incentives that discourage landowners from maintaining their lands as 
forest, and it recommended changes to the Internal Revenue Code that 
would help reverse these incentives and encourage landowners to keep 
their lands forested. The council's recommendations emphasized reforms 
of estate taxes, capital gains taxes on timber sales, and passive loss 
rules for forest management, and they have been incorporated in a 
separate bill, S. 692, which was introduced by Senator Gregg, and which 
I have cosponsored. As a tax bill, this legislation will obviously have 
to proceed on a separate track through the Finance Committee, and, 
therefore, we were not able to include it in this amendment. But the 
Northern Forest Senators remain committed to it, and, in fact, we 
included language in the findings section of this legislation stating 
that Congress and the President should enact additional legislation to 
address the tax policies that negatively influence the stewardship of 
our forest lands. We hope to get these tax changes included in the next 
major tax bill that comes before the Senate.

  Mr. President, I would also like to address a few specific criticisms 
of the original version of S. 1163, and describe the way in which we 
have modified the bill language as a result. The cosponsors agreed to 
revise the Principles of Sustainability section so that it now reads as 
a sense-of-the-Congress resolution. Concern had been expressed that the 
provision, as previously drafted, could be loosely interpreted to 
impose a set of national best management practices for private 
timberlands, and that was not our intent at all. The latest change 
eliminates the possibility of such an interpretation in the future. We 
changed the Congressional ``Declarations'' section to a ``Findings'' 
section, conforming it to the traditional format for Federal 
legislation, and making it clear that this provision does not, in any 
way, create any new legal authorities.
  In the Land Conservation section, the legislation has been modified 
to clarify that Federal funding for land acquisition under the act can 
only be provided as part of a State-managed public land acquisition 
process, which is a policy with which most stakeholders in the region 
agree.
  What we have before us today, Mr. President, is a responsible 
proposal to encourage and facilitate the conservation of the Northern 
Forest resource for its outstanding ecological, economic, and 
recreational values. In keeping with longstanding tradition in the 
region, the States will lead the effort on Northern Forest-related 
policy issues, but the Federal Government should be available to assist 
the States in their efforts if called upon to do so, and this bill will 
help to ensure that appropriate assistance is available. The Northern 
Forest Stewardship Act offers a reasonable, constructive, and 
consensus-oriented approach to forest management in our region.
  This legislation enjoys the support of the four Northern Forest 
States, a wide range of environmental organizations, the Maine Forest 
Products Council, and major newspapers in Maine. This is one bill that 
is truly both pro-environment and pro-economy. I hope all of my 
colleagues will support the Leahy amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me state this amendment has been 
reviewed. It has been cleared on this side. I commend and thank the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont for his cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4987) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 5004

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration. I think this has been cleared by both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5004.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  . BARLEY PAYMENTS.

       Section 113 of Public Law 104-127 is amended by inserting a 
     new subsection (g) that reads:
       ``(g) Adjustment in Barley Allocation.--In addition to the 
     adjustments required under subsection (c), the amount 
     allocated under subsection (b) for barley contract payments 
     shall be increased by $20,000,000 in fiscal year 1998, and 
     shall be reduced by $5,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1999-
     2002.''

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is an adjustment in the barley 
allocation in the farm bill. It seemed as though when we were making 
the transition payments on all commodities and program crops, barley 
and their producers were penalized more than anybody else in making the 
adjustments. In fact, all other commodities, all other program crops 
were adjusted just slightly lower, with the exception of rice, and it 
actually went up. The barley payment was adjusted a good whopping 30 
percent lower, 14 cents a bushel.
  What this amendment does is it moves money from the outyears to the 
nearby years: $20 million in this fiscal year and then taking from the 
next 4 years, the outyears, $5 million. In other words, we are going to 
increase

[[Page S8614]]

the payment about a nickel this year, and then we will be subtracting 
about a penny from the outyears in year 2, 3, 4 and 5.
  So with that, it will make an adjustment this year. I think this is a 
short-term solution. After talking with my colleague from Montana and 
my friends from North Dakota, we realize this is a short-term solution, 
and I think we have to look at a longer term to make the adjustment to 
make it fair. That is all we are asking for barley producers across 
America, is fairness. I think there has to be a long-term solution 
made.
  Mr. President, I ask for its adoption, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I support the effort of my colleague from 
Montana, Senator Burns. This is not any of our preferred solutions to 
the problem faced by our barley producers. Very frankly, the barley 
farmers have been left short. They were told very clearly last year 
that if the new farm bill passed, they would get 46 cents a bushel. 
Somebody made a mistake. It is still not clear to me who did or 
precisely how they did, but the fact is, a mistake was made. Instead of 
getting 46 cents, barley producers are going to get 32 cents, 30 
percent less.
  Very clearly, farmers were told 46 cents. They were told the prices 
and amounts that were going to be paid were estimates, no question 
about that. But they were told, and told repeatedly, that the amounts 
that they would actually receive would be close to those estimates. I 
was in dozens of meetings where they were told it would be close to 
those estimates; maybe a few cents difference.
  And, indeed, if you look at corn, they were told it was going to be 
27 cents. It turned out to be 24 cents. On wheat, they were told it was 
going to be 92 cents. It turned out to be 87 cents. Everybody 
understood those differences. But when it comes to barley, they were 
told 46 cents, and it turned out to be 32 cents. Not a 5-percent 
difference, not a 10-percent difference, a 30-percent difference. Is 
there any wonder that barley producers across the country are 
wondering, is there anything straight that comes out of Washington?
  They were told clearly and directly that if they signed up to this 
farm bill that 46 cents is what they could expect to receive. That is 
not what they are getting, that is not what they are receiving, and it 
is not right.
  There ought to be an adjustment. Many of us prefer we make this 
adjustment up front, clearly, and we take it out of the EEP program, or 
we take it out of some other approach, some other way of paying for it, 
but that it be paid for. In discussing it with our colleagues, it was 
clear that at this stage, that was not going to be acceptable.
  So the Senator from Montana has come up with an approach to bring 
money from later years up front to reduce this differential on the hope 
and the expectation that perhaps as we go through the process, we can 
get this problem solved in a more appropriate way.
  I think on that basis this approach deserves support, because, 
hopefully, in the conference committee, we can get a better resolution. 
Again, I think it is just a fundamental question of whether or not we 
treat our barley producers in this country in a fair way.
  I salute my colleague from Montana for his efforts. I thank the Chair 
and yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me ever so briefly agree with my 
colleagues. I support the efforts of the Senator from Montana. We had a 
number of meetings today with the Senator from Montana, Senator Burns, 
Senator Baucus, Senator Larry Craig, Senator Conrad, myself, and 
others. This is not the preferred solution. I do not view this as a 
destination. I view this as a step on the way to where we want to get 
to solve this issue.

  Senator Conrad said it clearly. The proposal was made that barley 
growers would receive fixed payments and the first year would be 46 
cents. That turns out not to be 46 cents at all but instead 32 cents a 
bushel. That may not mean much to people, unless you raise some barley 
and discover that your expected income is now 30 percent lower than you 
anticipated when you heard about this program and developed support for 
the program based on the representation of what the fixed payments 
would be in the farm program.
  So we will go to conference. This is a device and a mechanism by 
which this issue can go to conference. My hope is that this issue will 
be resolved in conference the way it should be resolved. It should be 
resolved by providing for barley producers what they were told they 
would receive as fixed payments in the farm bill. The failure to do 
that, it seems to me, really places at risk the credibility with 
respect to this farm program.
  I again support the efforts of the Senator from Montana as a step 
toward a destination that would make the barley producers whole. Mr. 
President, with that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me thank Senators who have been 
working to resolve this issue for their efforts. A great deal of work 
has gone into crafting this amendment. I compliment particularly the 
Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns]. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] be added as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are going to continue to monitor this 
situation. We hope that this is helpful. As we go into conference, we 
will work to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the Senate. With 
that, I know of no objections to the legislation. I hope that we can 
proceed to adopt it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5004) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for one moment so I might thank 
the chairman and the ranking member for their patience as we worked to 
resolve this matter? We very much appreciate your assistance.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind comments. 
We appreciate his good efforts, as well.


                    Amendment No. 5002, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the pending amendment 
now is the Brown amendment, as modified. I know of no objection to the 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we adopt the amendment and that 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The yeas 
and nays are vitiated. The amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5002), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 4978, Withdrawn

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know that the next amendment is the 
Kerrey amendment No. 4978. Senator Kerrey has offered this along with 
two other amendments. Those other amendments were agreed to. I have 
been authorized to ask that the Kerrey amendment No. 4978 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4978) was withdrawn.


               Amendments Nos. 5005 Through 5009, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now have a series of amendments which I 
will send to the desk en bloc and ask that they be reported and agreed 
to en bloc; an amendment on behalf of Senator Simpson; an amendment on 
behalf of Senator Hatfield; an amendment I send to the desk for and on 
behalf of the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Kempthorne; an amendment I send 
to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby; an 
amendment by Senator Domenici which is cosponsored by Senators Helms, 
Thurmond, Faircloth, and Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S8615]]


       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes 
     amendments numbered 5005 through 5009, en bloc.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 5005 through 5009), en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 5005

       At the end of the bill, add the following;

     SEC.  . EASEMENTS ON INVENTORIED PROPERTY

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     establish a wetland conservation easement under section 
     335(g) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1985(g)) on an inventoried property that was used for 
     farming (including haying and grazing) at any time during the 
     period beginning on the date 5 years before the property 
     entered the inventory of the Secretary and ending on the date 
     the property entered the inventory of the Secretary. To the 
     extent that land would otherwise be eligible for an easement 
     haying and grazing must be done according to a plan approved 
     by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5006

       On page 42, line 26 before the colon, insert the following: 
     ``provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not less than $2 million shall be available for grants in 
     accordance with section 310B(f) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(f))''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5007

(Purpose: To provide that the Secretary of Agriculture may use funds in 
 the Fund for Rural American for grants to develop and apply precision 
                       agricultural technologies)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

     SEC.  . GRANTS FOR PRECISION AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES.

       Section 793(c)(2)(A) of the Federal Agriculture improvement 
     and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 2204f(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (vii),by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (viii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ix) develop and apply precision agricultural 
     technologies.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5008

(Purpose: To make additional funding available for fiscal year 1996 for 
           investigations of arson at religious institutions)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

 TITLE VIII--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSION FOR THE FISCAL 
                     YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses,'' to 
     be used in connection with investigations of arson or 
     violence against religious institutions, $12,001,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                        Internal Revenue Service


                          information systems

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 104-52, $16,500,000 are rescinded.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5009

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency

       For an additional amount for the Agricultural Credit 
     Insurance Fund Program Account for the additional cost of 
     emergency insured loans authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     resulting from droughts in the Western United States, 
     Hurricane Bertha, and other natural disasters, to remain 
     available until expended, $25,000,000: Provided, That these 
     funds are available to subsidize additional gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans of $85,208,000: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     amount shall be available to the extent that the President 
     notifies Congress of his designation of any or all of these 
     amounts as an emergency requirement under section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.


   emergency supplemental appropriation for emergency disaster loans

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is nothing more precious to New 
Mexico, and to the arid Southwest in general, than water. 
Unfortunately, precipitation in the Southwest this year has been, in a 
word, disastrous. Precipitation and snow melts in almost every New 
Mexico basin are dangerously below average. Despite recent rains, 
stream flows in New Mexico are still predicted to be 33 to 100 percent 
below average through the summer, with no end in sight. If the drought 
continues, and there is every indication that it will, the consequences 
to New Mexico will be truly devastating.
  No sector in New Mexico has been hit harder by the drought than its 
farmers and ranchers. Water levels in the Middle Rio Grande have 
dropped severely, leading to radically decreased water availability for 
the hundreds of irrigators depending on that water. Farmers in the 
southern part of the State are being forced to go to water wells, thus 
depleting the already-taxed aquifer. And in northeastern New Mexico, 
winter wheat is failing for the first time in anyone's memory.
  Additionally, the drought has wiped out forage for New Mexico's 
livestock producers, causing an industry already hit hard by high feed 
prices to hurt even more. In fact, 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.
  Mr. President, one of the programs that has been crucial in helping 
the farmers and ranchers of my State cope with this disaster is the 
USDA's emergency disaster loan program. Funding for this program this 
year may soon run out, however. As a consequence, the Western 
Governors' Association has identified supplemental funding for 
emergency disaster loans as a top priority.
  Our amendment will ensure that this much-needed emergency loan 
program remains funded in the event of a shortfall in this fiscal year. 
The contingency funding will also remain available in the event of a 
shortfall in fiscal year 1997. Specifically, our amendment provides an 
additional $25 million for the program as an emergency supplemental 
appropriation, which will allow for an additional $98 million in 
emergency disaster loans. The additional funding in the amendment would 
only become available if the administration determines that other 
funding sources have been exhausted.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me reiterate that this drought is one 
of the worst calamities to hit my State, and the Southwest in general, 
in the last 50 years. Our amendment for supplemental funding of USDA's 
emergency loan program will ensure that desperately needed relief will 
continue to be given to those people who have been hardest hit by this 
disaster.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the eastern North Carolina 
farmers whose crops were devastated by Hurricane Bertha, I am happy to 
cosponsor this proposal to provide emergency loan assistance to 
farmers.
  On July 12, Hurricane Bertha ripped through the eastern part of North 
Carolina, destroying an estimated 80 percent of the State's tobacco 
crop and up to 90 percent of the corn crops in some counties. Cotton 
and soybeans also were damaged.
  Bertha was particularly devastating because it hit right before 
harvest season, ravaging crops in their most vulnerable stages. 
Estimates of the total damage to North Carolina agriculture continue to 
climb and currently stand at $188 million. Many North Carolina farmers 
suffered total losses of their 1996 crops.
  Mr. President, this amendment will provide emergency loans, approved 
by the USDA for farmers seeking a way to recover from the financial 
losses imposed by the hurricane. It will enable farmers to purchase the 
inputs such as fertilizer, seed, and equipment needed to put crops back 
into the ground.
  The early extension of credit to qualified farmers is essential to 
move them beyond this natural tragedy. I've been contacted by many of 
these farmers, Mr. President; for example, Ronnie and W.C. Cox who are 
fifth generation corn, cotton, and tobacco farmers in Onslow County. 
Their 300 acres of corn were totally destroyed along with 75 percent of 
their 225 acres of their tobacco crop. Cotton and other crops were 
likewise severely damaged.
  These farmers aren't asking for a free ride, Mr. President. The Coxes 
in Onslow County wrote to me saying, ``We do not want grants or 
handouts. But, we do need to borrow $750,000 or $1 million for 3 to 5 
years at a low interest rate.''

[[Page S8616]]

  Mr. President, this amendment will extend a helping hand to these 
embattled farmers and thereby help them to help themselves. It's the 
right thing to do--at the right time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 5005 through 5009), en bloc, were agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 5010 Through 5014, En Bloc

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes amendments 
     numbered 5010 through 5014, en bloc.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 5010 through 5014), en bloc, are as follows:

                           amendment no. 5010

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

       On page 23, line 8, strike ``$22,728,000'' and insert 
     ``$23,928,000''.
       On page 46, line 14, strike ``$657,942,000'' and insert 
     ``$656,742,000''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5011

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Canadian wheat 
                and barley exports to the United States)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF SENSE ON CANADIAN WHEAT AND BARLEY EXPORTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the United States Trade Representative should continue 
     to carefully monitor the export of wheat and barley from 
     western Canada to the United States;
       (2) the bilateral Memorandum of Understanding with Canada 
     clearly states that the United States--
       (A) will not accept market disruptions from imports of 
     Canadian grains; and
       (B) will use its trade laws if it appears likely that 
     market disruptions will occur;
       (3) the United States Trade Representative should monitor 
     any policy changes by the Canadian Government, acting through 
     the Canadian Wheat Board, that have the potential for 
     increasing the exports of Canadian grains to the United 
     States;
       (4) family farmers of the United States should not be 
     subject to increases in the 1-way channel of Canadian grain 
     exports to the United States that unfairly disrupt the grain 
     transportation systems and depress the prices received by 
     farmers; and
       (5) the United States Trade Representative should be 
     prepared to support the use of antidumping laws, 
     countervailing duty laws, section 301 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 4211), and other United States laws 
     consistent with the international obligations of the United 
     States, if--
       (A) the Canadian Government implements the changes 
     described in paragraph (3) without a resolution of the 
     underlying cross-border grain trading issues between the 
     United States and Canada; and
       (B) the changes lead to unfair and injurious exports of 
     Canadian grain to the United States.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5012

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Food and Drug Administration, in 
     consultation with the States and other appropriate Federal 
     agencies shall report to the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate on 
     the feasibility of applying DNA testing or other testing 
     procedures to determine the adulteration, blending, mixing or 
     substitution of crab meat other than Callinectes sapidus 
     offered for sale in the United States. The Administrator also 
     shall report on the feasibility of developing a database of 
     imported crab meat shipments from port of entry to final 
     wholesaler to be made available to State agencies to aid 
     enforcement and public health protection.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5013

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may be used to administer section 
     118(b)(2)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Transition Act 
     unless the planting of a fruit or vegetable on contract 
     acreage, if planted subsequent to the failure of a contract 
     commodity on the same acreage within the same crop year is 
     permitted on contract acreage: Provided, That this provision 
     shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this Act into 
     law.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5014

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to administer the provision of 
contract payments to a producer for contract acreage on which wild rice 
 is planted unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for each 
                  contract acre planted to wild rice)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . PLANTING OF WILD RICE ON CONTRACT ACREAGE.

       None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to 
     administer the provision of contract payments to a producer 
     under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 
     et seq.) for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted 
     unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for each 
     contract acre planted to wild rice.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the final 
passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Bryan
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kassebaum
     Moynihan
       
  The bill (H.R. 3603), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill, as amended, was passed.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments to H.R. 3603, and request a conference with the House of 
Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon and 
that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith) appointed Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, 
Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. 
Bumpers, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Byrd, 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their 
cooperation during our management and handling of this bill on the 
floor of the Senate. I especially want to thank and compliment the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his strong leadership and for 
his efforts to get a good bill passed by the Senate. We could not have 
done it either without the capable staff assistants: Becky Davies, Hunt 
Shipman, Jimmie Reynolds, Galen Fountain--all of whom worked very 
diligently, expertly, and professionally. They reflect credit on the 
Senate. We are very proud of them.

[[Page S8617]]

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me echo what the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi has just said.
  First, let me say--I do not say this to be all that gracious but to 
simply state as fact--that the Senator from Mississippi's patience is 
much greater than mine. There were times this afternoon when I grew 
terribly frustrated about the pace of the proceedings, and the Senator 
from Mississippi kept assuring me that negotiations would pay off and 
that we would get the bill passed in due time. Of course, he was dead 
right. But more importantly than that, he is a very gifted legislator 
and a man of great patience and intellect. And it is a real pleasure 
for me to work with him as the ranking member on this committee. I 
thank him for his really truly magnificent work on the bill.
  I would be remiss if I did not thank Becky Davies, Jimmy Reynolds, 
and Hunt Shipman of Senator Cochran's staff; and my own staff, Galen 
Fountain. If we choose to tell the truth, we will admit that is where 
most of the work was done. We could not have done it without them. I 
want to pay special tribute to the staff.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Mr. President, I believe the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas wishes to conclude his remarks.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, be added as a 
cosponsor of the Burns barley amendment that passed immediately 
preceding the passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for his outstanding work on this major 
piece of legislation. He showed real leadership once again and, of 
course, his colleague, the ranking member on the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bumpers, did a great job.
  Earlier today it was not clear at all how long this was going to 
take. But the fact of the matter is they only spent just a little over 
a day getting this job done even though it spread out over 3 days. It 
is a very important major accomplishment, and I thank them for their 
work. I commend all of our colleagues who worked through a lot of very 
difficult issues that affect a lot of States. They came to conclusion, 
and I appreciate very much the good work that they did.
  As a result of that our intent now is to go to the foreign ops 
appropriations bill. The manager, the chairman, the Senator from 
Kentucky, Senator McConnell, is here, and the ranking member is ready 
to go. We will go right to that.
  There will be no further rollcall votes tonight. We wanted to confirm 
that this is the last vote of tonight.

                          ____________________