[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9334-S9337]
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, 1997 CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report will be stated.

[[Page S9335]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3603) a bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1997, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of July 30, 1996.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I present for the Senate's approval today 
the conference report on H.R. 3603, the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  The conference agreement provides total appropriations of $53.3 
billion. This is $10 billion less than the fiscal year 1996 enacted 
level and $5 billion less than the level requested by the President. It 
is $1 billion less than the total appropriations recommended by the 
Senate-passed bill and $228 million more than the level recommended by 
the House bill.
  Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1997 of $12.96 billion in budget 
authority and $13.34 billion in outlays. These amounts are within the 
subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations.
  The committee of conference on this bill considered 147 amendments in 
disagreement between the two Houses. I believe it is a credit to the 
all members of this subcommittee who served as conferees on the part of 
the Senate and to the House Members who served on the conference 
committee that we were able to resolve our differences and reach a 
conference agreement 6 days after the Senate passed the bill. I would 
like to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from 
Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers; the chairman of the House subcommittee who 
chaired the conference, the Congressman from New Mexico, Mr. Skeen; the 
ranking member of the House subcommittee, the Congressman from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin; as well as all House and Senate members of the 
conference committee for their support and cooperation in this regard.
  It is with a great deal of pride that I can say this Appropriations 
Subcommittee has done its work, completing action on this 
appropriations bill to assure that funding for those agencies it covers 
is in place before the start of the new fiscal year. Senate adoption of 
this conference report today is the final step necessary to allow this 
measure to be sent to the President for signature into law. We have 
every indication that the bill will be signed by the President.

  Approximately $40.4 billion, close to 76 percent of the total new 
budget authority provided, is provided for domestic food programs 
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food 
stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental nutrition 
program for women, infants, and children; and the school lunch and 
breakfast programs. This is $58 million below the House bill level and 
$906 million below the Senate level. The difference from the Senate 
recommended level is principally due to the fact that the Senate 
receded to the House on the amount for the Food Stamp Program 
contingency reserve which was $900 million below the Senate bill level.
  For agriculture programs, the conference report recommends a total of 
$7.5 billion, $104 million more than the House-recommended level and 
$19 million more than the Senate bill level. This amount includes $1.1 
billion for agricultural research and education, $426 million for 
extension activities, $438 million for the Animal Plant Health and 
Inspection Service, $574 million--the full budget request level--for 
the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $746 million for the Farm 
Service Agency, and $64 million for the Office of Risk Assessment.
  For conservation programs, the conference report recommends $770 
million, $2 million more than the House bill level and $20 million less 
than the level recommended by the Senate.
  For rural economic and community development programs, the bill 
recommends $2 billion, $136 million more than the House level and $108 
million less than the Senate bill level. Included in this amount is 
$556.9 million for the Rural Utilities Assistance Program, which 
combines funding for rural water and waste disposal loans and grants 
and solid waste management grants. This represents an increase of $79 
million over the 1996 level. The bill also provides a total loan level 
of $3.5 billion for rural housing loan programs, the same as the level 
approved by the House and Senate, and $519 million over the 1996 level.

  For foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of 
Agriculture, the bill recommends $131 million for the Foreign 
Agricultural Service, including $27.5 million for the Cooperator 
Program; a total program level of $1.1 billion for the Public Law 480 
Food for Peace Program, including a program level of $240.8 million for 
title I, $837 million for title II, and $29.5 million for title III.
  Mr. President, this bill provides funding for many essential 
programs, programs which enhance and support the productivity of our 
agricultural sector, which provide essential services to the small and 
rural communities of this Nation, which conserve and protect our 
natural resources, and which provide needed food assistance, not only 
to those abroad but to assure no American goes hungry. Many of these 
programs are worthy of additional funding. However, we are also working 
to reduce the overall costs of Government and to assure efficiencies in 
the operation of Government programs. This bill is consistent with our 
overall budgetary and policy goals.
  Mr. President, the conference report we present to the Senate today 
reflects a mutually satisfactory resolution of the differences between 
the two Houses. It does so in a manner which reflects the funding 
requirements of the many programs and activities covered by the bill 
within the limited resources available.
  I recommend its adoption by my colleagues.


         regarding The Center for Applied Aquaculture in Hawaii

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, over the years, the Congress has been 
supportive of utilizing Hawaii's unique environment to develop 
important science-based aquaculture technology and to demonstrate and 
provide that technology to the U.S. aquaculture industry. With initial 
construction funding for Hawaii's Center for Applied Aquaculture in 
1988 and subsequent installments in 1994 and 1995, enough money has 
been appropriated in the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service's buildings and facilities account to complete 
construction of a full-fledged aquaculture research and 
precommercialization facility in the Hawaiian Islands.
  The dynamic proposal for the Center for Applied Aquaculture has grown 
to demonstrate the importance of a core research facility together with 
satellite facilities, including grow-out ponds to demonstrate new 
technology on a larger than laboratory precommercialization scale, 
protected quarantine facilities to ensure the all-important maintenance 
of disease free fish stock, and a hatchery to supply fry to the 
research and demonstration components.
  Hawaii's island geography and the physical limitations of the core 
research facility dictate the establishment of the essential satellite 
demonstration, quarantine and hatchery facilities on neighboring 
islands. There would be no question about building these integral 
components if the core research site could accommodate them properly. 
However, with no further appropriation and with the support of the 
Agriculture Department for the satellite components, all of this can 
still be accomplished in Hawaii. I would hope that my colleagues, 
Chairman Cochran and Senator Bumpers, could support this vision of 
Hawaii's Center for Applied Aquaculture, which will not only provide 
for a total package of groundbreaking aquaculture technology that can 
be demonstrated at a level to make it viable for private commercial 
investment, but will also give the Federal Government the highest and 
best use of its investment over the last 8 years.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with my colleague from Hawaii and recommend that 
the Department favorably consider the Center for Applied Aquaculture's 
plans to establish a complete

[[Page S9336]]

aquaculture research and precommercialization facility in Hawaii.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would like to associate myself with Senator Cochran's 
comments on this matter and urge the Department to respond positively 
to the Center for Applied Aquaculture's proposal for a core aquaculture 
technology development facility together with integral satellite 
facilities to demonstrate those technologies for the benefit of U.S. 
aquaculture industry.
  Mr. INOUYE. I very much appreciate my colleagues' interest and 
support for enhancing the U.S. aquaculture industry by developing, 
testing, and transferring science-based technology to the commercial 
aquaculture sector.


         Horticultural and Water Management Research Laboratory

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the ranking member of 
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies about a 
facility important to U.S. agricultural research and the State of 
California. The President's budget request included $22 million for 
construction of a Horticultural and Water Management Research 
Laboratory at Palier, CA. This facility will be operated by the 
Agricultural Research Service [ARS], the research arm of the Department 
of Agriculture.
  This facility will contribute greatly to solutions for many of the 
problems facing our farmers and others reliant on proper management of 
our natural resources. The facility will conduct critically important 
research on water management, postharvest quality, insect control and 
quarantine operations. All these functions are becoming increasingly 
important as we all try to balance the needs of water users, 
environmental protection, and the maintenance of a safe and abundant 
food supply. Currently, this research is housed in inadequate and 
inappropriate space, with many researchers using parked trailers as 
office and laboratory facilities. I agree with the President that this 
facility must be completed as soon as possible in order to upgrade our 
Nation's research capabilities and continue to make our farmers 
competitive in growing world markets.
  I would like to know if the Senator can share with me the views of 
the conferees of the pending appropriations bill regarding this 
important project.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would like to respond to the Senator from California 
by stating that I and the other conferees are very aware of this budget 
item and agree that construction should commence at the earliest 
possible date.
  I am happy to report that the Senate bill included $11 million for 
this facility. I wish we could have provided the full amount requested 
by the Senator from California, but our allocation, being severely 
reduced from the previous year, prevented us from meeting her full 
request. Unfortunately, the House provided no funding for this project.
  As the Senator knows, once construction begins, any delays in project 
completion eventually result in greater cost. There were a number of 
ARS facility projects nearing completion that could be completed in 
fiscal year 1997. Accordingly, the conferees decided to complete those 
projects before allocating funds for new facilities in order to better 
manage our limited resources.
  There was discussion about the merits of the Palier laboratory during 
House and Senate conference negotiations. It is intended that by 
completing ongoing projects, which will be no longer the subject of 
future appropriations, we will be able to provide higher levels of 
funding for other priority needs. If we can provide full funding for 
the Palier facility next year, it will serve the double benefits of 
assisting the U.S. agricultural industry and helping us use our fiscal 
resources more efficiently.
  Although it is impossible now to know what our allocation will be for 
fiscal year 1998, it is clear that if provided adequate resources, it 
would be to everyone's advantage to provide full funding for the Palier 
laboratory in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his explanation and I look 
forward to working with him again next year on this important project.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is considering the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 3603, the agriculture, rural development and 
related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
  The conference agreement provides $52.3 billion in new budget 
authority [BA] and $44.9 billion in new outlays to fund most of the 
programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. 
All of the funding in this bill is for nondefense purposes.
  When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the final bill totals $55.3 billion in BA and $54.2 
billion in outlays for fiscal year 1997. Including mandatory savings, 
the subcommittee is $158 million in BA and $71 million in outlays below 
its 602(b) allocation.
  The final conference agreement includes legislative changes in 
mandatory programs totaling $505 million and $484 million in outlays. 
The savings from these provisions are then used to pay for 
discretionary spending in the bill.
  The majority of these mandatory savings come from provisions limiting 
the standard deduction under the Food Stamp Program. CBO scores these 
savings at $345 million in both BA and outlays for fiscal year 1997.
  The Senate will soon take up the conference report on the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996--the 
long-awaited welfare reform bill--that has gained bipartisan support 
and a commitment from the President to sign this bill into law.
  This historic measure includes identical savings from freezing the 
food stamp standard deduction. By counting these savings in both bills, 
which are expected to be signed by the President, we give up additional 
deficit reduction by the amount of the duplicate mandatory savings.
  These mandatory savings assist the subcommittee in completing the 
appropriations bill well within its current 602(b) allocation. For 
discretionary spending, the final bill is $991 million in BA and $774 
million in outlays below the President's budget request. The final bill 
is $159 million in BA above the House-passed bill, and $9 million in 
outlays below the House-passed bill. The conference agreement is $884 
million in BA and $694 million in outlays below the 1996 level.
  I am pleased that the conferees retained the language I requested 
requiring competitive bidding for WIC infant formula. This provision 
will ensure that in these times of tight budgets we maximize the 
benefits we get from the dollars we spend on this important program.
  It is estimated that up to one quarter of the WIC caseload--1.5 
million children and pregnant women--is served as a result of the $1 
billion in savings generated from competitive bidding for infant 
formula.
  I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman for including this 
provision in the bill and retaining the language in conference.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the 
Record.

      AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE: SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT      
                 [Fiscal year 1997, dollars in millions]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........     $3,853
  H.R. 3603, conference report....................    $12,960      9,487
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary.............     12,960     13,340
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................        497      3,533
  H.R. 3603, conference report....................     39,385     35,435
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget.........................................  .........  .........
    Resolution assumptions........................      2,418      1,845
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal mandatory............................     42,300     40,813
                                                   =====================
    Adjusted bill total...........................     55,260     54,153
                                                   =====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .........
  Nondefense discretionary........................     13,118     13,411
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................     42,300     40,813
    Total allocation..............................     55,418     54,224
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .........
  Nondefense discretionary........................       -158        -71
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................  .........  .........
    Total allocation..............................       -158        -71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions. Prepared by SBC    
  Majority Staff, July 31, 1996, 06:50 p.m.                             

                                Medguide

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to engage the Senator from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, the chairman of the

[[Page S9337]]

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, about his 
understanding of the provision included in the conference report of the 
fiscal year 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill relating to the FDA's 
proposed medguide regulation.
  Am I correct in saying that the conferees retained the language in 
the conference report that was adopted by the full Senate last week?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, Senator. This conference report retains the 
language, as adopted by the Senate, that prevents further finalization 
or implementation of the medguide regulation.
  Mr. COATS. At this point, I would like to make sure I understand that 
this provision does not preclude the FDA from using its existing 
authority to require, on a drug-by-drug basis, the provision of written 
information prepared by the manufacturer to consumers about 
prescription drugs that pose a serious risk.
  We have been informed by the FDA that it will only be required to use 
its existing authority to require patient information for a very 
limited number of products.
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is the committee's understanding, as well. The 
committee believes that the FDA's current authority to require written 
patient information is essential for certain prescription drugs, on a 
drug-by-drug basis, in cases where they pose a serious risk to the 
patient if used inappropriately.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Chairman for clarifying this and appreciate 
his leadership and assistance in helping us craft a compromise that is 
acceptable to the committee and to the FDA.


                           Medication Guides

  Mr. KENNEDY. The provision we are enacting on medication guides 
places certain limitations on the FDA regarding its pending medication 
guide regulation as it pertains to voluntary information provided by 
pharmacists. However, as you know, there was another part of the 
pending FDA regulation that was not intended to be affected by this 
provision. That was the FDA's intention to require FDA-approved patient 
leaflets for drugs that pose a serious and significant public health 
risk. Those would be drugs that cannot be used appropriately without 
specific written information provided to the patient. Although the 
instances in which such leaflets would be required would be very 
small--no more than three or four per year--it is critical that FDA 
have the flexibility to use regulations to ensure that these drugs can 
be safely used, as was specifically provided for in the House language 
of H.R. 3603 as well as in the Senate report accompanying H.R. 3603 
which stated ``this provision is not to be construed as prohibiting the 
FDA from using its existing authority or regulatory authority to 
require as part of the manufacturers' approved product labeling the 
dispensing of written information inserts to consumers on a case-by-
case basis with select prescription drugs to meet certain patient 
safety requirements.''
  Mr. BUMPERS. Your understanding is correct. As we noted in the Senate 
report accompanying H.R. 3603 at the time, the provision covering the 
voluntary medication leaflet program was not to be construed as 
applying in any way to the FDA's use of its existing authority to 
require patient leaflets for drugs that can cause severe birth defects, 
have serious adverse reactions when used with other drugs, and similar 
instances that pose a serious and significant public health risk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order of yesterday, the 31st of 
July, 1996, the Senate having received the conference report on H.R. 
3603, the agriculture appropriations bill, the conference report is 
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
  The conference report was agreed to.

                          ____________________