[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7935-S7946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S7935]]
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, very much, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 971

   (Purpose: To require the Director of the Office of Management and 
 Budget to conduct, complete, and transmit to Congress a comprehensive 
economic evaluation of the direct and indirect effects of the Northeast 
                       Interstate Dairy Compact)

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, tonight I am pleased that an amendment by 
Senator Feingold and I, which we intended to offer, has now been 
accepted in modified form.
  Because this issue is so important to my State, I wanted to take some 
time to briefly review why I offered the amendment and why this 
amendment is requiring a study of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  My amendment is straightforward and is noncontroversial. It simply 
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to study and report the economic 
impacts of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
  The focus of this amendment is to examine the impact of the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact on food nutrition programs and on the entire 
Nation's dairy industry.
  This amendment will help protect senior citizens, children, and the 
most needy among us.
  This amendment helps all who rely on food stamps, the School Lunch 
Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program, the Special Milk Program, the School Breakfast Program, and 
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children, as well as dairy producers in 44 States.
  Joining me in offering this amendment are Senators Feingold, Thomas, 
Kohl, Levin, Wellstone, DeWine, and Craig.
  As many of my colleagues may know, on July 1, 1997, the Compact 
became effective in a six-State region in New England giving producers 
there an arbitrary, fixed price for their milk--nearly $17 per 
hundredweight.
  Unfortunately, few of us know exactly what this will mean for 
consumers in that region, particularly the poor; for the cost of 
delivering food nutrition assistance by Federal, State, and local 
governments; and for dairy producers in 44 other States, including my 
producers in Minnesota, who receive far, far less for their milk than 
their New England counterparts.
  We are not sure of the Compact's impact, in large part, because there 
has been so little light shed on it. It became law attached in a 
conference committee. The Compact has always seemed to travel under a 
cloud with no justification for its existence.
  For example, in the 103d Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
held a business meeting to consider the Compact--without the benefit of 
a single hearing--and reported the Compact to the floor. The Senate 
never considered it.
  A House Judiciary subcommittee held one hearing on the proposal, but 
eventually sent it to full Committee without recommendation because the 
vote was evenly divided for and against the Compact. The bill died in 
Committee.
  In fact, at the House hearing, the administration's testimony was 
``we believe this is a matter that warrants further review and 
consideration''. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
  In the 104th Congress, the Compact was the subject of not a single 
hearing in either the Judiciary Committee or the Agriculture Committee 
of the Senate. Nor was it the topic of a single hearing in counterpart 
Committees in the House.
  Despite this, the Compact wound up in the Senate's version of the 
farm bill. In response, a majority of this body voted to strip it out. 
The House never included the Compact in its version of the farm bill. 
Yet, somehow the Compact found its way back into the farm bill during 
conference, and survived buried in a conference report most of us 
supported overall.
  Subsequent to the authority for the Compact becoming law, the 
Secretary of Agriculture decided to go ahead with implementation of the 
Compact despite the fact that the President's own Council of Economic 
Advisors recommended against it.
  As a matter of fact, it was reported that the former head of the 
President's Council of Economic Advisors, Mr. Joseph Stiglitz, lashed 
out at the * * * Compact, noting it was a cost to U.S. consumers and 
lowered real benefits paid out via food stamps by 10 percent.
  I wish I could share with my colleagues the Council of Economic 
Advisor's actual recommendation against the Compact. Unfortunately, 
however, when I wrote to the current Chairman of the Council, Ms. Janet 
Yellen, for that information, my request was denied.
  I also took the time to show up at an Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee hearing to submit the request to Secretary Glickman who 
was testifying at the time. A month or two later, I received from the 
Secretary yet another denial of my request for this information.
  Adding insult to injury, when the Compact was being challenged in 
court, it seemed for a while that the Department of Agriculture was 
going to have a tough time just beating back that challenge even though 
the Federal court hearing the case was applying the lowest possible 
threshold--the rationale basis test--in scrutinizing the Compact.
  As my colleagues are aware, the rationable basis test applied by 
courts only requires that there be just a little bit of logic in a 
government action--it just has to make some kind of sense.
  Yet, on the Secretary's first attempt to explain the Compact, the 
judge in a frustrated tone, stated that the Secretary of Agriculture's 
concerns--about the Compact--expressed in four paragraphs, overshadow 
the four reasons, expressed in two sentences, that the Secretary gave--
in favor of the Compact.
  In short, the Secretary could not even supply a meager rational 
reason for the Compact's existence.
  Shortly after that pronouncement from the court, the Secretary of 
Agriculture asked Judge Friedman for a second shot at rationalizing the 
Compact.
  However, the amended brief supporting the Compact did not address the 
economic impacts of the Compact or even the Secretary's own concerns. 
But, since the court only required some kind of reasoning--any kind of 
reasoning--the Compact survived in court.
  Mr. President, it is plain to see from all this that the cloud 
covering the Compact has still not lifted. The Compact and its exact 
economic effects are very uncertain, at best, and this should rightly 
concern Members from the Compact region as well as those of us in the 
other 44 States.
  In his August 9, 1996, statement, Secretary Glickman himself stated:

       I am concerned about the potential effects of the Compact 
     in several respects and intend, therefore, to monitor closely 
     its implementation.

  Secretary Glickman also continued:

       I expect that the Compact Commission will implement the 
     Compact in a way that does not burden other regions of the 
     country, consistent with the provisions of the FAIR Act and 
     the Compact. I will monitor whether the Compact has any 
     adverse effects on the income of dairy producers outside the 
     Compact region.

  Further, the Secretary announced, and again I quote:

       Perhaps most significantly, I am deeply concerned about and 
     will closely monitor the effect of the Compact on consumers, 
     especially low-income families, within the Compact region.
       I expect that the Commission will pay close attention to 
     monitor the effects of its decisions on consumers before and 
     after it takes any action.

  He went on to say, and again I am quoting:

       I also expect the commission and the Compact States to 
     provide assistance to offset any increased burden on low-
     income families in the Compact region. I am also concerned 
     about the effect of the Compact on the Department of 
     Agriculture's nutrition programs, and I expect the commission 
     to exercise its authority to reimburse participants in a 
     special supplemental nutrition program for WIC and to fulfill 
     its obligation to reimburse the CCC, as provided in the 
     Compact and in the FAIR Act.

  Mr. President, despite the concerns expressed by the Secretary of 
Agriculture regarding the compact, we still

[[Page S7936]]

have no way of knowing whether the compact is in fact having an adverse 
effect on consumers, especially the poor, and, if it is, to what 
extent.
  We have no way of knowing whether the compact is increasing the cost 
of food nutrition programs, adversely affecting taxpayers who foot the 
bill. We also have no way of knowing whether the compact has an adverse 
effect on the dairy producers of 44 other States in this country or 
whether the CCC will pick up bigger tabs because of the compact. The 
only information we have today are newspaper articles from the compact 
region reporting that retail milk prices have climbed 20 to 26 cents 
per gallon since the compact was implemented, and retailers and 
consumer groups are blaming the compact.
  We are also hearing word that milk production in the compact region 
is on the rise in response to the fixed prices New England dairy 
producers are receiving. I am told that one large processor in the 
compact region is not accepting any additional milk at one of its 
plants and is instead shipping five to seven loads a day of excess milk 
to the Midwest where it is sold for around $7 to $8 per hundredweight 
for processing.
  If these reports are correct, New England lawmakers should be 
extremely concerned about their consumers, especially the poorest among 
them. My colleagues from the other 44 States, especially those States 
that produce dry powdered milk or cheese, should be equally concerned 
about producers in their home States having to compete with $7 and $8 
milk coming out of New England. But the fact is none of us know for 
sure what is happening out there due to the compact because the cloud 
lingers, and, therefore, all I am asking from my colleagues is a little 
bit of sunshine.
  It seems to me that last Congress we bought this rig sight unseen 
without even so much as kicking the tires. Under those circumstances, I 
don't think it is unreasonable to now ask that we take a look under the 
hood. If the folks who sold us the compact are right, then there is 
nothing to hide. At this juncture, I believe that a study of the 
compact is not only appropriate but it is very necessary.
  Mr. President, in the August 9, 1996, statement of Secretary 
Glickman, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary also stated:

       I also encourage Congress to exercise its oversight 
     function and to monitor the implementation of the compact.

  Mr. President, I think the Secretary has offered us some very sound 
advice. This is the best way to provide that necessary oversight. If 
the compact is compromising our efforts to help the disadvantaged, the 
senior citizens and children through nutrition programs or 
disadvantaging dairy producers in 44 States, I want to be one of the 
first to learn that information and then to do something about it.
  So, Mr. President, I understand again that this amendment I offer 
with Senator Feingold is accepted, and I thank all of those who have 
helped us work on this and support it.
  Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I add Senator 
Abraham to the list of cosponsors of this amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I thank you for the time and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator's amendment offered for a vote?
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I understand that the amendment has been 
accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment would need to be offered and a 
voice vote taken.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, my understanding is that the amendment has 
been accepted and no recall vote is needed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator needs to send the amendment to the 
desk.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Levin, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Craig, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 971.

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

       On page 66, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 728. STUDY OF NORTHEAST INTERSTATE DAIRY COMPACT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Child, senior, and low-income nutrition programs.--The 
     term ``child, senior, and low-income nutrition programs'' 
     includes--
       (A) the food stamp program established under the Food Stamp 
     Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.);
       (B) the school lunch program established under the National 
     School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
       (C) the summer food service program for children 
     established under section 13 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1761);
       (D) the child and adult care food program established under 
     section 17 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1766);
       (E) the special milk program established under section 3 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772);
       (F) the school breakfast program established under section 
     4 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1773);
       (G) the special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
     infants, and children authorized under section 17 of that Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1786); and
       (H) the nutrition programs and projects carried out under 
     part C of title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3030e et seq.).
       (2) Compact.--The term ``Compact'' means the Northeast 
     Interstate Dairy Compact.
       (3) Northeast interstate dairy compact.--The term 
     ``Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact'' means the Northeast 
     Interstate Dairy Compact referred to in section 147 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7256).
       (4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (b) Evaluation.--Not later than December 31, 1997, the 
     Director shall conduct, complete, and transmit to Congress a 
     comprehensive economic evaluation of the direct and indirect 
     effects of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, and other 
     factors which affect the price of fluid milk.
       (c) Components.--In conducting the evaluation, the Director 
     shall consider, among other factors, the effects of 
     implementation of the rules and regulations of the Northeast 
     Interstate Dairy Compact Commission, such as rules and 
     regulations relating to over-order Class I pricing and 
     pooling provisions. This evaluation shall consider such 
     effects prior to implementation of the Compact and that would 
     have occurred in the absence of the implementation of the 
     Compact. The evaluation shall include an analysis of the 
     impacts on--
       (1) child, senior, and low-income nutrition programs 
     including impacts on schools and institutions participating 
     in the programs, on program recipients and other factors;
       (2) the wholesale and retail cost of fluid milk;
       (3) the level of milk production, the number of cows, the 
     number of dairy farms, and milk utilization in the Compact 
     region, including--
       (A) changes in the level of milk production, the number of 
     cows, and the number of dairy farms in the Compact region 
     relative to trends in the level of milk production and trends 
     in the number of cows and dairy farms prior to implementation 
     of the Compact;
       (B) changes in the disposition of bulk and packaged milk 
     for Class I, II, or III use produced in the Compact region to 
     areas outside the region relative to the milk disposition to 
     areas outside the region--
       (C) changes in--
       (i) the share of milk production for Class I use of the 
     total milk production in the Compact region; and
       (ii) the share of milk production for Class II and Class 
     III use of the total milk production in the Compact region;
       (4) dairy farmers and dairy products manufacturers in 
     States and regions outside the Compact region with respect to 
     the impact of changes in milk production, and the impact of 
     any changes in disposition of milk originating in the Compact 
     region, on national milk supply levels and farm level milk 
     prices nationally; and
       (5) the cost of carrying out the milk price support program 
     established under section 141 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251).
       (d) Additional States and Compacts.--The Secretary shall 
     evaluate and incorporate into the evaluation required under 
     subsection (b) an evaluation of the economic impact of adding 
     additional States to the Compact for the purpose of 
     increasing prices paid to milk producers.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 971) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S7937]]

  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By previous order, the Senator from Minnesota 
has the floor and has an amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that the Senator 
from--I thought that this amendment was going to be much more brief. 
That was my understanding. I am anxious to go on with my amendment, but 
my understanding is that the Senator from Vermont had wanted to speak 
on this, and out of courtesy to a colleague, I defer to him.
  I ask the Senator, does he know how long he will be speaking?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell my good friend from Minnesota that I 
will speak probably about 1 minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. More than that.
  Mr. LEAHY. It will be very brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank Senators who worked very hard in 
working this matter out. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, my good friend, the senior Senator from Mississippi, for 
his efforts and, of course, the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
Bumpers], for his efforts.
  I thank the members of my staff who worked so hard, and my colleague 
from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. And, of course, Senator Grams and 
Senator Feingold, from Wisconsin, who as a Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, while involved in a very difficult markup today, also spent 
a great deal of time in trying to work out this matter of great concern 
to his dairy farmers, as it is the other Senator from Minnesota, Mr. 
Wellstone.
  We have worked out an understanding regarding a study of the 
Northeast Dairy Compact and regarding milk pricing practices as they 
effect consumers.
  The Director of OMB will do a study on dairy, retail store, 
wholesaler and processor pricing in New England.
  Many Senators are very concerned, and I have not found one who is 
not, that when the price that farmers get for their milk drops that the 
retail price--the consumer price--often does not drop.
  Wholesalers or retail stores appear to be simply making more profits 
at the expense of farmers.
  This is one issue we are very interested in.
  Also, the price of milk in New England, in the South, in the Midwest, 
and in the West is supported by a variety of milk marketing orders. 
These have a tremendous impact on the price of milk in retail stores, 
and these marketing orders will continue to exist for years to come.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact will exist for only about 18 months--it 
terminates in 1999, or when the Secretary reforms the milk marketing 
order system, whichever comes first as provided in the farm bill.
  I want to remind everyone that the compact was first approved by each 
of the six legislative bodies in New England, and signed into law by 
each of their Governors.
  So the impact on retail prices of the milk marketing order system, 
the impact on prices of wholesaler and retail profits, the impact on 
prices of the dairy compact, among other factors will be examined by 
the Director.
  The prices farmers get for their milk dropped substantially last 
November nationwide. They dropped quickly, and have stayed low for 
months.
  It amounted to a 35 cent to 40 cent drop on a per gallon basis. That 
is a huge drop for farmers. Yet retail stores did not lower their 
prices to consumers except by a few pennies.
  Prices that farmers got stayed low, and prices paid by consumers 
stayed high.
  How did the stores make out during this big price drop to farmers? 
There has been a major increase in retail store profits for milk.
  In some areas of the country there is now a $1.40 per gallon 
difference between the raw milk price--which farmers get--and the 
retail price of milk.
  Now that stores took advantage of that price drop to lock in huge 
profit margins for milk are they going to give consumers a break? Of 
course not.
  The Compact Commission did its job. They picked a fair return for 
farmers that is lower than the average price last year for milk.
  Let me repeat that: under the Compact farmers in New England are 
getting less for their milk than the average price they got for their 
milk last year.

  Because retail stores now have huge built-in profit margins on milk 
there should be no increases in price under the compact--yet retail 
stores are not satisfied.
  The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have exposed this 
retail store overcharging for milk.
  The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the value of milk for 
farmers plunged by 22 percent since October of 1996--but that no 
comparative decline occurred in the retail price of milk.
  Farmers got one-fifth less for their milk, and stores made a bundle. 
The dairy case is now the most profitable part of a supermarket.
  The last time I asked GAO to look at store profits for milk I was 
amazed at what they discovered.
  GAO found then, and its the same now, that when farm prices collapse 
that retail milk prices to consumers stay high.
  The failure of stores to lower prices may have had a significant 
adverse impact on nutrition programs. Also, I know from newspaper 
accounts that one chainstore in Maine dropped the price of a gallon of 
skim milk by one penny after the compact was implemented. Other stores 
reacted differently even though they enjoyed the benefit of a major 
price drop which I previously discussed. We need to know if stores 
unfairly increased prices by taking advantage of the compact even 
though they did not have to increase prices at all.
  I thank my good friend from Minnesota for the courtesy of letting me 
take this time, and my friend from Minnesota, Mr. Grams.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 972

  (Purpose: To provide funds for outreach and startup for the school 
                   breakfast program, with an offset)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 972.

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

       On page 28, line 21, strike ``$202,571,000'' and insert 
     ``$197,571,000''.
       On page 47, line 6, strike ``$7,769,066,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,774,066,000''.
       On page 47, line 13, insert after ``claims'' the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That not less than $5,000,000 shall be 
     available for outreach and startup in accordance with section 
     4(f) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1773(f))''.
       On page 66, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 728. OUTREACH AND STARTUP FOR THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1773) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Outreach and Startup.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Eligible school.--The term `eligible school' means a 
     school--
       ``(i) attended by children, a significant percentage of 
     whom are members of low-income families;
       ``(ii)(I) as used with respect to a school breakfast 
     program, that agrees to operate the school breakfast program 
     established or expanded with the assistance provided under 
     this subsection for a period of not less than 3 years; and
       ``(II) as used with respect to a summer food service 
     program for children, that agrees to operate the summer food 
     service program for children established or expanded with the 
     assistance provided under this subsection for a period of not 
     less than 3 years.
       ``(B) Service institution.--The term `service institution' 
     means an institution or organization described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) or (7) of section 13(a) of the National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)).
       ``(C) Summer food service program for children.--The term 
     `summer food service program for children' means a program 
     authorized by section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1761).
       ``(2) Payments.--The Secretary shall make payments on a 
     competitive basis and in the following order of priority 
     (subject to the other provisions of this subsection), to--

[[Page S7938]]

       ``(A) State educational agencies in a substantial number of 
     States for distribution to eligible schools to assist the 
     schools with nonrecurring expenses incurred in--
       ``(i) initiating a school breakfast program under this 
     section; or
       ``(ii) expanding a school breakfast program; and
       ``(B) a substantial number of States for distribution to 
     service institutions to assist the institutions with 
     nonrecurring expenses incurred in--
       ``(i) initiating a summer food service program for 
     children; or
       ``(ii) expanding a summer food service program for 
     children.
       ``(3) Payments additional.--Payments received under this 
     subsection shall be in addition to payments to which State 
     agencies are entitled under subsection (b) of this section 
     and section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1761).
       ``(4) State plan.--To be eligible to receive a payment 
     under this subsection, a State educational agency shall 
     submit to the Secretary a plan to initiate or expand school 
     breakfast programs conducted in the State, including a 
     description of the manner in which the agency will provide 
     technical assistance and funding to schools in the State to 
     initiate or expand the programs.
       ``(5) School breakfast program preferences.--In making 
     payments under this subsection for any fiscal year to 
     initiate or expand school breakfast programs, the Secretary 
     shall provide a preference to State educational agencies 
     that--
       ``(A) have in effect a State law that requires the 
     expansion of the programs during the year;
       ``(B) have significant public or private resources that 
     have been assembled to carry out the expansion of the 
     programs during the year;
       ``(C) do not have a school breakfast program available to a 
     large number of low-income children in the State; or
       ``(D) serve an unmet need among low-income children, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(6) Summer food service program preferences.--In making 
     payments under this subsection for any fiscal year to 
     initiate or expand summer food service programs for children, 
     the Secretary shall provide a preference to States--
       ``(A)(i) in which the numbers of children participating in 
     the summer food service program for children represent the 
     lowest percentages of the number of children receiving free 
     or reduced price meals under the school lunch program 
     established under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1751 et seq.); or
       ``(ii) that do not have a summer food service program for 
     children available to a large number of low-income children 
     in the State; and
       ``(B) that submit to the Secretary a plan to expand the 
     summer food service programs for children conducted in the 
     State, including a description of--
       ``(i) the manner in which the State will provide technical 
     assistance and funding to service institutions in the State 
     to expand the programs; and
       ``(ii) significant public or private resources that have 
     been assembled to carry out the expansion of the programs 
     during the year.
       ``(7) Recovery and reallocation.--The Secretary shall act 
     in a timely manner to recover and reallocate to other States 
     any amounts provided to a State educational agency or State 
     under this subsection that are not used by the agency or 
     State within a reasonable period (as determined by the 
     Secretary).
       ``(8) Annual application.--The Secretary shall allow States 
     to apply on an annual basis for assistance under this 
     subsection.
       ``(9) Greatest need.--Each State agency and State, in 
     allocating funds within the State, shall give preference for 
     assistance under this subsection to eligible schools and 
     service institutions that demonstrate the greatest need for a 
     school breakfast program or a summer food service program for 
     children, respectively.
       ``(10) Maintenance of effort.--Expenditures of funds from 
     State and local sources for the maintenance of the school 
     breakfast program and the summer food service program for 
     children shall not be diminished as a result of payments 
     received under this subsection.''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am sorry it is late tonight. I am 
going to have a chance to summarize this amendment for colleagues 
tomorrow. Let me just start out with a poster from the Children's 
Defense Fund: ``Remember Those Hungry Kids In China? Now They Are In 
Omaha.'' But it could be in any of our States. Currently there are an 
estimated 5.5 million American kids who don't eat regularly. They don't 
get enough to eat.
  Mr. President, we have to do better. I offer an amendment to the 
agriculture appropriations bill which would revive the outreach and 
startup grants program for school breakfasts. They are called outreach 
grants. It may come as a shock to some of the Members of this body that 
children, too many children, are going to school hungry and we are not 
doing anything about it. Let me repeat that. I have brought this 
amendment to the floor of the Senate before. I now have an amendment on 
the agriculture appropriations bill. I hope I will win on this 
amendment. I appeal to my colleagues to please support this amendment, 
but I will come back with this amendment over and over and over again, 
until I restore the funding.
  This program was eliminated. Let me just repeat what is going on 
here. There are too many children who go to school who are hungry. We 
are not doing anything about it. There are too many children who go to 
school with rotting teeth from non-nutritious foods. There are too many 
children who go to school with aching, empty stomachs. There are too 
many children who go to school who are unable to learn because they are 
malnourished and hungry. And that is not the goodness in our country.
  Mr. President, the welfare law of 1996 eliminated--eliminated the 
school breakfast outreach and startup grants. They were created in 1990 
and they were made permanent in 1994. What these outreach grants are 
all about--and we are talking about $5 million and only $5 million to 
reestablish this program--these were grants that enabled States and 
school districts to set up school breakfast programs. Some 45 States 
have received these funds. Every student who is eligible for a free 
lunch is eligible for school breakfast as well. However, only about 40 
percent of those who are hungry, those who come from very low-income 
families and are eligible for school lunch program, are able to 
participate in the school breakfast program as well.
  This program, this outreach program which was combined with the 
public awareness program by the Food Research and Action Committee--and 
thank God we have FRAC, because they do wonderful work, and other 
nutrition advocacy groups--was a catalyst. We were able, through this 
outreach program, to expand the school breakfast program by 26,000 
schools to an additional 2.3 million poor children between 1987 and 
1994.
  I would like my colleagues to listen carefully to this, not only 
tonight, many are gone but staffs are around, but also tomorrow when I 
summarize. This program was extremely successful. It was eliminated 
because of the almost Orwellian argument that the $5 million outreach 
program should be eliminated because it was effective, because it was 
providing States and school districts with the information they needed 
to set up a school breakfast program to help hungry, malnourished 
children.
  I need to repeat that argument. This was completely eliminated. We 
eliminated an outreach program for poor children in America to make 
sure that they were able to participate in the school breakfast program 
because the argument was made it was encouraging school districts to 
set up school breakfast programs and therefore the Federal Government 
would have to contribute some money.
  Yes, we would. And that would be a good thing. Because today there 
are 14.3 million children who receive free and reduced-price lunches, 
but 8 million of them, spread across 27,000 schools, go to school 
hungry and receive no school breakfasts at all. Mr. President, 8 
million children who need the help, 8 million children who could be 
starting out the day with a nutritious breakfast, do not receive that 
assistance, in part because we eliminated a $5 million outreach grant 
program. We eliminated the whole program. My colleagues know that 
hungry children cannot learn. And they know that if they cannot learn, 
when they are adults they won't be able to earn. I could not think of 
anything that is more shortsighted.
  Let me just repeat, talking about children and the importance of an 
equal chance for every child, too many children in our country, 8 
million children--maybe more, maybe a few less, what difference does it 
make?--go to school and there is no school breakfast program. They are 
eligible. We eliminated the outreach program that would give States and 
school districts additional information so they could help hungry 
children, and as a result of that there are too many children who don't 
do well in school.
  Let me go with the next chart, although I will hold this up tomorrow. 
I would like my colleagues to see this.

[[Page S7939]]

 There are hungry kids in our country, an estimated 5.5 million 
American kids don't regularly get enough to eat. That is the 
Food Research in Action Coalition report, that is the Children's 
Defense Fund, this comes from the work of Tufts University. I mean, the 
evidence is there, colleagues. We have too many children who are 
malnourished. We have too many children that do not have an adequate 
diet. And we eliminate a $5 million program, an outreach program, 
because we said it was too effective.

  This chart points out the percentage of children from hungry and 
nonhungry households, and how it relates to health-related problems. 
Let me point out, the red is percent of nonhungry children, the green 
is percent of hungry children. Whether you are looking at unwanted 
weight loss, or fatigue, or frequent colds, or inability to 
concentrate, or ear infection, dizziness, asthma, allergies, diarrhea, 
irritability, frequent headaches--over and over and over again--this is 
from the Food Research Action Council, 1995--it is dramatic: The much 
larger percentage of children who are hungry children experience all of 
these specific health related problems.
  It is not too much, I say to my colleague from Mississippi, this is 
not too much to ask for. I don't think, when we voted on the welfare 
bill, the debate was really on this one $5 million outreach program. It 
was just one program in a large bill that we eliminated and we should 
not have. We set it up in 1990. It was very effective between 1990 and 
1994; 1995, it was an excellent program, it was a program that provided 
outreach to 45 States. It meant that some additional school districts 
knew how to set up a school breakfast program. And, yes, we ended up 
providing some funding for that. But we should. Where there are 
children in need, where there are children who could really be helped 
by a program that would give them a nutritious meal, would give them a 
nutritious breakfast, we ought to make sure that happens. Otherwise 
these children don't do as well in school.
  I would just say to my colleagues, this is really all about our 
national vow of equal opportunity for every child. How can anybody here 
in the U.S. Senate say that we truly have equal opportunity for every 
single child when we have over 5 million children that do not get 
enough to eat and we don't even allocate $5 million for an outreach 
program that would help those children start out the day with a 
nutritious breakfast? This is wrong. I am just sure of it. This is 
wrong. We have to be able to do this.
  I just want to say, because my colleague is on the floor, Senator 
Cochran from Mississippi, that the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee did 
not cut this program at all. They didn't eliminate this program. This 
happened in the overall welfare bill. This was not action of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I also want to say that Senator Cochran has been an advocate for 
children's nutrition programs. So let me be crystal clear, this is not 
aimed at some action taken by the Ag Appropriations Committee. But, Mr. 
President, what we did in the last Congress was profoundly mistaken.
  Let me just read for a moment--and there are many different studies I 
could read from--from the Tufts study. This really went back to 1987, 
in which Meyer Sampson, et al, examined the effect of the School 
Breakfast Program on school performance of low-income students in 
Lawrence, MA.
  In any case, what they found out is that from standardized tests to 
lateness and absences, over and over again, children who participated 
in the School Breakfast Program were shown to do much better on 
achievement tests, were shown to get to school on time, were shown to 
not be absent from school so often.
  It is just so clear. Can't we come up with $5 million? Now we have a 
doctor, Dr. Frist, who is presiding. This is a medical issue. I am just 
saying to Dr. Frist that we have a study here from the Food Research 
Action Council which points out the correlation between children who 
are malnourished and some of the health problems--unwanted weight loss, 
fatigue, frequent colds, inability to concentrate, ear infection, 
dizziness.
  I am saying I don't think any of us realize that in the welfare bill, 
we eliminated a $5 million--that is all it is--outreach program that 
was very effective. It was in operation in 45 States, and for the $5 
million investment, we help provide school districts with information 
about how they can set up a school breakfast program.
  I am pointing out that there are some 8 million children who are 
eligible for the School Breakfast Program who don't receive any help, 
and there are too many children who go to school and don't get a 
nutritious meal. For $5 million, I say to my colleagues, we could have 
this outreach program. We never should have eliminated it. We know that 
when children are hungry, they don't do as well in school. The evidence 
is irrefutable and irreducible. We know that when children are 
malnourished and hungry that they don't have the same opportunities as 
our children do to do well in school. And we know that there is, as 
reported by the Tufts study, as reported by some of the work of the 
Food Research Action Council, and I have here about--if I had wanted 
to, I could have taken several hours to go over this amendment--a 
variety of different studies that have been done, and over and over and 
over again, it is the same. This is the Tufts University School of 
Nutrition, I say to the Presiding Officer, ``The Link Between Nutrition 
and Cognitive Development in Children.''
  Look, if we have children in our country--and the evidence is clear--
who go to school and, because their parents are so poor or for other 
reasons, and they are eligible because they are from low-income 
families, they don't get that nutritious breakfast, and we know there 
is a link between nutrition and cognitive development, we know there is 
a link in early years, we know there is a link in terms of how children 
do in school, why in the world would we have eliminated an outreach 
program? That is what we did.
  I will tomorrow, in summarizing this amendment, talk about what the 
offset will be, but I want to be real clear to everybody who is 
listening tonight--and I will do my very best to talk about this 
tomorrow again--that it may come as a shock, but the fact of the matter 
is, there are too many children who are going to school hungry, and we 
are not doing what we could do to help those children.
  It is a fact that there are too many children who go to school with 
rotting teeth from non-nutritious foods, and we could allocate $5 
million for an outreach program which, as I pointed out, multiplies 
itself over and over and over again, and, in fact, has made a huge 
difference for some 2.3 million children.
  It is a fact that too many children are going to school with aching, 
empty stomachs, and we are not doing all that we can do to help those 
children.
  It is a fact that there are too many children who, because they do 
not start out the day with a decent meal, are not able to learn, and I 
will say it one more time, they are not able to learn, and because they 
are not able to learn, when they are adults, they are not able to earn.
  How shortsighted can it be to not be willing--we had a $270 billion 
Pentagon budget. We have all sorts of subsidies that go to oil 
companies, to pharmaceutical companies, to big insurance companies. We 
find all sorts of places and areas to spend money, and this $5 million 
outreach program was eliminated.
  Mr. President, maybe some people who are watching tonight will have a 
chance to speak on the floor about something I think is important 
tomorrow morning. I will have a chance to summarize this amendment. But 
one more time, I hope that we will restore this. I could read study 
after study after study, but I don't think I need to; I really don't 
think I need to. It is just crystal clear: We never should have 
eliminated a $5 million outreach program that actually led to some 2.2 
million more children having the chance to participate in the School 
Breakfast Program, because this outreach program gave school districts 
and gave States the information they needed to set up the School 
Breakfast Program.

  Then in the welfare bill, this outreach program was eliminated 
because the curious argument was made that it was too successful and 
too many school districts were setting up the School Breakfast Program 
and, God forbid, we were going to have to spend more money on child 
nutrition. That is the

[[Page S7940]]

argument that was made, not by this committee, but the Ag Committee has 
jurisdiction over nutrition programs.
  I say to my colleague from Mississippi, this is an opportunity for us 
to do something in a bipartisan way that would really make a 
difference. This would be a good thing to do. This would be a right 
thing to do. This would be a small thing to do, but it would have a 
really large impact.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time to see whether or 
not there might be some reaction to my amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the kind remarks 
of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota in connection with the fact 
that the program discussed by him, and which is the subject of his 
amendment, was not in any way reduced in funding by the action of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee or the full Committee on 
Appropriations. As a matter of fact, we tried very hard to identify 
needs in the nutrition area, including the school lunch programs, child 
nutrition programs, food stamps, Women, Infants and Children feeding 
program, and others. I think Senators will notice that there are 
substantial increases in funding for WIC, for example, to make sure 
there is a full participation permitted next year, and that means we 
had to add $200 million more to that account to help guarantee that no 
one participating in the WIC Program now would be denied eligibility or 
participation due to a lack of funding next year.
  And in every other way, we tried to look at the evidence before the 
committee that we had available to us during our hearings to assess the 
needs and to make available the funds that we thought were necessary to 
help make sure that all Americans have access to a nutritious diet, 
that the food supply is safe, and that, in every respect, we continue 
to make sure that people in our society do not have to go without food.
  Having said that, the Senator is correct in that there are still a 
lot of unmet needs, there are still a lot of problems. We can identify 
areas of the country that have special needs. I am sympathetic to those 
needs and assure all Senators that this committee will continue to try 
to work to alleviate those needs.
  The amendment addresses language that was adopted by the Senate and 
eventually contained in legislation signed by the President that 
modified a lot of the programs that do provide assistance to 
individuals. In the welfare reform effort, there were a number of the 
laws that were modified, some under the jurisdiction of our Agriculture 
Committee--this was one of them--that were made necessary through the 
establishment of spending ceilings in certain program areas.
  Our committee had the unwelcome task in many cases of identifying 
programs that could be helpful in some areas of the country but, for 
various reasons, maybe the States or local school districts, it was 
thought, could do the things that the Federal Government had previously 
been trying to do. And this is one area.
  Outreach is very important. School districts, local communities, 
State governments all have resources, all have very dedicated people 
leading them in elected positions and in every way are available to 
help deal with problems that the Senator from Minnesota has discussed.
  I do not know what the disposition of the legislative committee will 
be on this amendment, whether it will suggest that it ought to be 
accepted or resisted. We are consulting with the leaders of the 
legislative committee, and we understand that they will continue to 
look at this and maybe tomorrow when we return to consideration of this 
amendment in the morning when we convene, there may be a better 
understanding of what the response will be at that time.
  But at this point, I am willing to let the Senator continue to 
discuss his amendment if he likes. He has the right to do that under 
the order that has been entered, and we will be happy to continue to 
work with him on this and other issues that he is interested in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague, who is 
always gracious. I think that is one of the reasons he is held in such 
high regard.
  I just point out again that we can have a discussion tomorrow morning 
or negotiation. And look, from my point of view, you know, I am 
sometimes grateful for small victories. And if there was a way that 
this amendment would be accepted, I would be very pleased. Then I would 
have to fight hard to keep it in the conference committee.
  Mr. President, I think that my colleague from Mississippi is 
absolutely correct in his analysis of what happened by way of going 
after this outreach grant program for school breakfasts with the 
argument being, ``Here are the caps and here is what we have got to do 
to save the money.'' If you want to, call me naive, but I just would 
like to say that this is a very brutal argument, not by my colleague 
from Mississippi, but this is a brutal argument that people are making. 
``We have got caps. We have got to save the money. Therefore, we 
eliminate a $5 million outreach program because it has led--that is why 
we have to eliminate it--it will lead to more school districts setting 
up a school breakfast program, and, therefore, more children who are in 
fact malnourished or hungry will be able to get at school a nutritious 
breakfast.'' That is a brutal argument.
  Why in the world are we willing to make these kinds of cuts that 
target these children when we know darn well that the medical evidence 
and the educational evidence is so clear that it can make a huge 
difference whether or not a poor child has a decent breakfast and can 
start out the schoolday with a decent breakfast?
  What do you think the price is that we pay in children that could do 
well in school, that don't, that drop out? What do you think the price 
is that we pay for kids that get into trouble with substance abuse, 
that get into trouble with the law, that there is a higher correlation 
between high school dropouts and incarceration than cigarette smoking 
and lung cancer? What is the price we pay for kids dropping out?
  Now, an adequate breakfast for a poor child does not, ipso facto, 
guarantee that child will do well. But why in the world did we 
eliminate this outreach program? And why can't we restore it?
  Mr. President, I am really hoping that tomorrow we will be able to 
get support for this one. The Tufts University--I believe the Chair 
knows the Tufts University does some pretty good work, especially when 
it comes to issues with children and malnutrition.
  Current scientific research links nutrition and cognitive 
development.
  Undernutrition along with environmental factors associated with 
poverty can permanently retard physical growth, brain development, and 
cognitive functioning.

  The longer a child's nutritional, emotional, and education needs go 
unmet, the greater the likelihood of cognitive impairments.
  Iron deficiency anemia, affecting nearly 25 percent of poor children 
in the United States, is associated with impaired cognitive 
development. Iron deficiency anemia, which affects 25 percent of poor 
children in the United States, is associated with impaired cognitive 
development, and we cannot find $5 million for an outreach program, for 
a school breakfast program for malnourished children?
  Poor children who attend school hungry perform significantly below 
nonhungry low-income peers on standardized test scores.
  There is a study--I am a social scientist. They had an experimental 
group and control group, and they found out--they took children from 
the same income category--and they found that those children who 
attended school not hungry did much better on standardized tests than 
those children who attended school hungry.
  Is anybody here surprised by that finding? Isn't that clear? Those 
children from poor families who go to school and receive a good 
breakfast will do better in school, will do better on standardized 
tests. Does anybody want to argue with that? Well, if you

[[Page S7941]]

don't, then how can you eliminate an outreach program that makes sure 
that those children are able to get that healthy breakfast?
  So, Mr. President, we will have more debate on this tomorrow. I thank 
my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi. I really hope that there 
will be support for this amendment, that we can find the small amount 
of money which would make such a huge difference.
  In any case, this is one of those amendments I just am going to keep 
bringing out on the floor because I know that we did the wrong thing. I 
know that. I think I can argue that. Since I believe in the goodness of 
people and I believe in the goodness of the Senate, I think there has 
just got to be a way that we can restore this program because it is not 
a program; it is kids, it is children. And we can help them.
  I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 971

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by Senator Grams which has been agreed to today and 
it has been my pleasure to work with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Grams] and the Senators from Vermont [Mr. Leahy and Mr. Jeffords] to 
reach an agreement to require the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget to study the impacts of the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact. I appreciate the cooperation of the senior Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
Bumpers] in reaching agreement on this amendment.
  Mr. President, the amendment we have offered today is an extremely 
reasonable amendment on which all Senators should agree. This amendment 
simply requires that the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget study the economic effects of implementation of the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact with respect to consumers, dairy farmers 
outside the compact as well as on vital low income nutrition programs 
such as the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast 
Program, and the Summer Food Service Program all offer milk to children 
from low-income families. The congressional oversight provided by this 
amendment is the responsible thing to do and I am pleased that the 
managers of the bill and the compact supporters have agreed to have 
this study conducted.
  The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was included in the conference 
report of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 
or farm bill, despite the fact the full Senate decisively struck the 
compact from the Senate bill by a vote of 50 to 46. The compact was in 
neither the Senate farm bill nor the House version of the farm bill as 
passed by both Chambers.
  It is unfortunate that the will of the Senate was undermined by the 
backroom agreements of the conference committee. That conference 
agreement further undermined the authority of the Congress by 
improperly delegating to the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to 
consent to the compact, regardless of the national public interest. 
This amendment will help us to determine whether the public interest is 
subverted by the compact.
  And the public interest is definitely implicated by the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact. The compact allows six States to fix milk 
prices paid to dairy farmers well beyond the minimum price specified 
under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. The compact also allows those six 
States to keep out milk produced by farmers from other parts of the 
country, regardless of how competitively that milk is priced. The 
compact provides competitive credits, or subsidies, to compact milk 
processors in order to allow them to sell their milk outside of the 
compact region. Meanwhile, the compact fails to protect consumers from 
increased prices and does not have any mechanism in place to protect 
farmers outside the compact from the actions of dairy farmers in six 
States who are isolated from the market conditions that non-compact 
producers face.
  Mr. President, up to this point both the concern about, and the 
promise of, the Northeast Dairy Compact has been conjecture. But now 
that the compact has gone into effect we will have hard data to examine 
its economic impacts.
  The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission fixed the price of 
fluid milk in the compact region at $16.94 per hundredweight on July 1, 
1997. That price is a full $3.00 above the price Northeast farmers 
would have received in July under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. As 
many of the compact opponents had predicted, the retail price of fluid 
milk has increased by as much as 26 cents per gallon--a full cost 
increase pass through to consumers--something the compact proponents 
said would never happen.
  And media in the Northeast report on farmers who are now considering 
adding more cows to their herds to increase their production and income 
when in fact, compact proponents suggested that the compact would not 
increase milk production in the Northeast. These production increases 
in the compact region come at a time when producers in the 44 other 
States are facing 6-year low prices due to excess dairy product stocks. 
At a time when the market is sending the dairy industry the signal to 
cut back of supplies, the compact farmers are getting the signal to 
increase production.
  Furthermore, anecdotal reports from milk buyers in the Northeast 
suggest that excess milk production from the Northeast is already being 
dumped on States outside of the region at prices less than half the 
price being paid to compact producers. Farmers fear this excess milk 
will depress prices nationally which are already at devastatingly low 
levels. Yet compact opponents were assured that no milk would be dumped 
outside of the compact because the compact was a net milk importer.
  Mr. President, given that many of the things compact proponents said 
could never happen appear to be happening--increased consumer costs, 
increased milk production, lower priced exports of milk from the 
compact region--we must take a careful look at the impacts of this 
compact.
  We must scrutinize how the compact affects our vital low-income 
nutrition programs. The National School Lunch Program serves 25 million 
children daily and in 1996 served 4.3 billion lunches. The six compact 
States alone served 170 million school lunches in 1996, nearly all of 
which were served with milk. Milk is also a component of the School 
Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult 
Care Food Program and the Special Milk Program, programs all offered in 
the compact States.
  If the cost of milk to consumers is going up in the compact region 
due to compact milk price, the value of food stamps for poor families 
may be declining, costs to schools, summer food service institutions 
and child and adult care facilities are likely increasing as their per 
meal reimbursement remains flat and the cost of the milk they serve 
increases, and the food dollars of low-income families are likely not 
stretching as far as they used to. It is absolutely critical that we 
determine the impact of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact on  
these vital nutrition programs and I am surprised that compact 
proponents do not agree.

  The amendment that has been accepted today will help determine 
whether or not the benefit of the compact exceeds the financial cost to 
dairy producers in other States.
  The Northeast dairy compact has been extremely controversial in the 
U.S. Senate because it takes an entirely regional approach to dairy 
policy, walling off a few farmers in six States from the conditions 
faced by tens of thousands of dairy farmers elsewhere. And Mr. 
President I believe the Northeast dairy compact will ultimately harm 
Wisconsin's 24,000 dairy farmers. But I also believe it will hurt dairy 
farmers in the 44 non-compact States such as California, Washington, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Idaho, and Indiana, among others.
  Milk is produced and marketed in a national, not a regional market. 
And what happens with respect to milk prices and production levels in 
one region has national repercussions. Wisconsin's family farmers, with 
an average herd size of 55 cows, are concerned that increased 
production in the Northeast spurred on by the high compact milk price, 
will depress prices throughout the Nation. Farmers who are suffering 
from the current national $10.74 basic milk price cannot afford to 
suffer further price declines due to increased milk production from the 
Northeast. Furthermore, as history has shown increased milk production 
in one region

[[Page S7942]]

in surplus of what is needed for fluid purposes results in surplus 
production of cheese, butter and similar product. This in turn 
depresses cheese prices which directly impact prices paid to producers. 
These concerns are serious and the compact must be carefully evaluated 
to determine if compact farmers are producing too much milk to the 
detriment of non-compact farmers.
  Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today has recognized the 
obligation of this body in ensuring that the compact is carefully 
monitored and its impacts scrutinized.
  Mr. President, I remain strongly opposed to the compact and will 
continue to work toward its repeal. The compact sets a dangerous 
precedent in allowing one region to fix prices for its producers to the 
detriment of non-compact producers. I believe the Northeast dairy 
compact will harm the 24,000 family dairy farmers in my State of 
Wisconsin. Hopefully the information that may be gathered by the study 
required by our amendment will help persuade the Senate that it erred 
in allowing the inclusion of the amendment in the 1996 Farm bill.
  I yield the floor.


                       prescription drug user fee

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief 
colloquy with Senator Cochran regarding the status of legislation to 
modernize the Food and Drug Administration and reauthorize the 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 [PDUFA]. The Labor Committee has 
reported out S. 830 with a strong bipartisan vote of 14-4. This 
legislation reauthorizes PDUFA for 5 years and brings the Agency's 
procedures up to date with the tremendous innovation now occurring in 
the health technology sector. It is my understanding that the bill 
before us does not reauthorize or extend the PDUFA program and 
appropriately leaves this action to the Labor Committee and the 
Congress. The bill before us does anticipate this reauthorization of 
PDUFA by setting a limit on the amount of fees which may be collected 
and expended once the reauthorization is enacted--which is a sensible 
approach. FDA reform and reauthorization of PDUFA go hand-in-hand and I 
am fully confident that we will have legislation accomplishing both at 
once on the floor in a timely fashion.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Jeffords, is 
correct. I would note that the bill before us does not allow the 
collection of Mammography Standards Act or PDUFA fees in the absence of 
authorizing legislation from the Labor Committee being approved by the 
Congress and signed into law. Further, I am well aware of the Senator's 
efforts to bring a bill reauthorizing PDUFA and modernizing the FDA to 
the floor and strongly agree that reform of the Agency and PDUFA 
reauthorization must go forward together. I look forward to debating 
these issues in the full Senate in the near future.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1998.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $50.0 billion in new budget 
authority [BA] and $41.6 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 nondefense spending. This 
subcommittee received no allocation under the Crime Reduction Trust 
Fund.
  When outlays for prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $48.8 billion in BA 
and $49.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998. Including mandatory 
savings, the subcommittee is at its 602(b) allocation in BA and 
slightly below its 602(b) allocation in outlays.
  The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 602(b) allocation 
totals $48.8 billion in budget authority [BA] and $49.4 billion in 
outlays. Within this amount, $13.8 billion in BA and $14.2 billion in 
outlays is for nondefense discretionary spending.
  For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting--scoring--all 
the mandatory savings in the bill, the Senate-reported bill is at the 
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation in BA and $128 million below the 
allocation in outlays. It is $281 million in BA and $324 million in 
outlays below the President's budget request for these programs.
  I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor under 
its 602(b) allocation. I appreciate the committee's support for a 
number of ongoing projects and programs important to my home State of 
New Mexico as it has worked to keep this bill within its budget 
allocation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

              S. 1033, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 1998--SPENDING COMPARISONS, SENATE-REPORTED BILL             
                                         [Fiscal year 1998, $ millions]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Defense  Nondefense   Crime  Mandatory   Total 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:                                                                                           
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     13,791   ......    35,048    48,839
  Outlays......................................................  .......     14,039   ......    35,205    49,244
Senate 602(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     13,791   ......    35,048    48,839
  Outlays......................................................  .......     14,167   ......    35,205    49,372
President's request:                                                                                            
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     14,072   ......    35,048    49,120
  Outlays......................................................  .......     14,363   ......    35,205    49,568
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority.............................................  .......  ..........  ......    35,048    35,048
  Outlays......................................................  .......      3,909   ......    35,205    39,114
                                                                                                                
               SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:                                                                
Senate 602(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority.............................................  .......  ..........  ......  .........  .......
  Outlays......................................................  .......      (128)   ......  .........    (128)
President's request:                                                                                            
  Budget authority.............................................  .......      (281)   ......  .........    (281)
  Outlays......................................................  .......      (324)   ......  .........    (324)
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority.............................................  .......     13,791   ......  .........   13,791
  Outlays......................................................  .......     10,130   ......  .........   10,130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping 
  conventions.                                                                                                  

  Mr. DOMENICI. I urge the passage of the bill.


                            Access to Credit

  Mr. BENNETT. I would like to take a moment to discuss an issue in 
which I know my colleague, Senator Lugar, has a strong interest, that 
is the need for access to credit by entrepreneurs in the rural areas of 
this country. I have been concerned about the access to capital for 
entrepreneurial businesses almost since I first stepped onto the Senate 
floor after my election in 1992 and I want to make clear that I have 
pursued a number of different avenues to help create a more liquid 
credit market in rural areas. Senator Lugar, you and I are no strangers 
to under served capital needs of rural businesses. I helped sponsor and 
pass Senator D'Amato's Small Business Loan Securitization bill almost 3 
years ago in hopes of helping bring more credit to rural businesses.
  In past Congresses and in this Congress I have repeatedly approached 
Senator Bond, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, with regard 
to the increasing need for rural credit. The Small Business Committee 
tells me that there will be inadequate funding for rural 
nonagricultural businesses as included in the SBA 7(a) Program. The 
Department of Agriculture is concerned that there is inadequate funding 
for its Business and Industry Program, which lends to rural 
nonagricultural interests. Additionally, many bankers have voiced their 
concerns that inadequate credit and liquidity will adversely affect 
their small business lending and investment programs nationwide.
  Mr. LUGAR. I am aware that recent studies by USDA, GAO, the Kansas 
City Fed, and the Rural Policy Research Institute have all noted the 
difficulty rural businesses, particularly new businesses, have in 
obtaining capital. The studies also suggest that a lack of adequate 
credit for rural businesses is affecting the economic growth of those 
communities.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have read those reports as well and I know that the 
reasons they cite for these deficiencies include relatively fewer 
credit suppliers, higher costs due to lower credit demand, a lack of 
professional lending experience in rural and outlying areas, and a lack 
of liquidity in many rural lending institutions when compared to urban 
lending institutions.
  The amendment I was prepared to offer today sought to remedy this 
situation by creating a pilot project, at no cost to the Federal 
Government, for 1

[[Page S7943]]

year. If the pilot had proven unsuccessful, the project would not have 
been renewed.
  This solution would have expanded the authorities of an existing 
Government Sponsored Enterprise [GSE] to ensure reliable and 
competitively priced credit from existing lending institutions to rural 
small businesses nationwide.
  It was my belief that this was the most expedient legislative 
approach to take. I believe that the expansion of Farmer Mac's 
authority in this area makes sense because it is a logical outgrowth of 
activities it already conducts, such as securitizing commercial loans, 
operating through thousands of existing commercial credit outlets, and 
providing access to national capital markets for rural and nonrural 
borrowers alike.
  I look forward to working with the Agriculture Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over this issue, over the coming months to remedy this 
problem and I thank my colleague Senator Lugar for his willingness to 
address this important issue.
  Mr. LUGAR. I, too, am concerned that rural entrepreneurs do not have 
the same kind of access to capital markets as do their nonrural 
counterparts. I am also aware of concerns raised by various groups in 
regards to my esteemed colleague's amendment. I believe a hearing will 
offer the opportunity to vet all points of view. It is my intent that 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry hold a hearing on 
rural and agricultural credit as soon as possible in the hopes that we 
can find a timely solution to this problem.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have been monitoring the problems 
associated with rural credit needs for some time. At a time when the 
credit availability problems of rural small business and rural 
infrastructure are being highlighted by various experts and studies, 
the very institutions that provide credit to these concerns are having 
their funding reduced. Solutions to these problems are being thwarted 
by petty bickering and turf battles that do little else than prolong 
the agony for rural residents and deprive them of the benefits they 
deserve.
  I have read with interest the recent reports from the Rural Policy 
Research Institute [RUPRI], the General Accounting Office [GAO], and 
the USDA on rural credit needs. I have also reviewed the proceedings of 
the Kansas City Fed's conference on ``Financing Rural America.'' These 
documents present no surprises for those of us who represent rural 
areas. While each study approaches its task in a unique manner, all of 
these reports are similar in their conclusions. They note that while 
rural financial markets work reasonably well, not all market segments 
are equally well served. They all agree that small businesses from 
rural areas can have a difficult time obtaining financing, have fewer 
credit options, and may well pay more for their credit than comparable 
urban enterprises. At a time when small businesses are being recognized 
for their valuable contributions to our economic growth and stability, 
small businesses are experiencing increasing credit needs. 
Unfortunately, USDA's Business and Industry loan program and the Small 
Business Administration's funding are being limited in fiscal year 
1998.
  The facts are worrisome. As the RUPRI study points out, many rural 
areas were bypassed by recent employment growth. Existing rural 
employment is concentrated in slow-growth or declining industries. Job 
growth in rural areas, particularly rural areas that are not adjacent 
to metropolitan areas, is biased toward low-skill, low-wage activities. 
USDA has stated that ``Rural economies are characterized by a 
preponderance of small businesses, fewer and smaller local sources of 
financial capital, less diversification of business and industry, and 
fewer ties to non-local economic activity.'' This does not bode well 
for my home State of Utah where 25 of 29 counties are classified as 
rural by the USDA.
  To further illustrate, USDA's Fiscal Year 1998 Business and Industry 
[B&I] loan program will be straight-lined at fiscal year 97 levels. 
Based on data provided by USDA, current B&I loan volume is capped at 
about $740 million; however, USDA has applications pending for yet 
another $700 million, with preapplications already on file for still 
another $200 million. These numbers suggest that adequate private 
capital is not available. Again, using my home State of Utah as an 
example, there are over $10 million in B&I loans outstanding. However, 
due to USDA budget limitations, loans for almost $19 million, 
associated with pending applications and preapplications, will not be 
made. This will not be helpful to Utah's economic growth and 
development, especially in rural areas. Unfortunately, this story of 
unmet rural credit demand can be replicated for almost all of the 50 
States represented by this Congress.
  All of the above mentioned reports discuss options for addressing the 
need for rural credit. All of them discuss one or more options 
associated with GSE funding, which frankly, are the most logical and 
persuasive alternatives discussed. I, personally, am persuaded that 
expansion of Farmer Mac authorities is the most effective and the least 
obtrusive alternative presented to date. It uses existing credit 
delivery systems and allows lenders to sell their qualifying loans into 
the secondary market. Other options discussed include expanding the 
authorities of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, or the Farm Credit 
System. I am uncomfortable in advocating expansion of a mortgage 
lender's authorities into commercial lending activity. I am equally 
uncomfortable with expanding a tax exempt GSE's authorities into direct 
competition with the private sector. I am open to suggestions and want 
to consider all options, including merging GSE's or mergers of public 
and private interests if such options will provide cost-effective and 
efficient solutions to the problems associated with rural credit 
availability.
  Throughout the discussion of the last several weeks, I have become 
poignantly aware of the strongly held feelings on this issue. I am 
concerned that a solution to the problems associated with improving 
rural credit delivery may be beyond the grasp of rural residents and 
businessmen if the petty bickering and turf battles are not set aside. 
I commend my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar, who chairs the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for his willingness 
to hold hearings on this issue. I, for one, am open to any and all 
reasonable options for improving credit delivery in these rural areas. 
I believe, as many of these reports point out, that improved economic 
growth will be the result and national GDP will be enhanced.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1998 agriculture spending 
bill that comes before us today totals $3.2 billion less than was spent 
on agriculture-related programs last year, and $12.6 billion less than 
was spent the prior year. That is an actual reduction in spending, from 
$63.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $50.7 billion this year--an 
astounding 20 percent cut.
  Mr. President, the savings are due in large part to the more market-
oriented farm policies that Congress approved in 1996--policies that I 
supported. The Freedom to Farm Act did away with the decades-old policy 
of providing subsidies to farmers when market prices dropped. It did 
away with the policy of requiring farmers to plant the same crops every 
year and instead established a system of fixed, declining payments on 
the way to a farm policy free of Government intervention.
  The substantial savings in farm programs will allow us to target more 
funding to high-priority domestic programs, like the Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC] nutrition program and the Food and Drug 
Administration's food safety initiative. WIC alone would receive an 
additional $121 million in the upcoming fiscal year. And without price 
supports and other subsidies to artificially boost the cost of food, 
every family's food budget will eventually go farther. WIC recipients 
will get more for their food dollar. Taxpayers will save. Every family 
will save.
  Given that spending is better prioritized, and given the substantial 
savings achieved in this bill, I intend to vote for it. Nevertheless, I 
believe we have the opportunity to do even better. Corporate welfare 
programs, like the Market Access Program, which subsidizes the 
advertising budgets of U.S. companies overseas, is still funded by this 
bill. It should be cut or eliminated. Spending on the tobacco, sugar, 
and peanut programs could also be reduced. These programs were largely

[[Page S7944]]

preserved, notwithstanding other reforms in the 1996 farm bill. We 
ought to phase them out as well.
  There are a variety of special funding earmarks in this bill that 
could be the subject of the President's new line-item veto authority. 
The veto could be applied, for example, to almost all of the nearly 100 
special research grants earmarked within the Cooperate State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service budget. The Committee report 
identifies grants totalling $47.5 million for such activities as maple 
research, alternative salmon products, goat research, and potato 
research, to name just a few. Most of these grants were not requested 
by the President.
  It may well be that some of these research activities have merit and 
should proceed, but I would ask why taxpayers should be obligated, 
particularly to fund those projects that specifically benefit targeted 
industries? More money could always be spent to find ways of enhancing 
productivity, improving flavor or appearance, or increasing resistance 
to disease or drought. It seems to me, however, that producers--whether 
they grow potatoes, blueberries, cranberries, or goats--have every 
reason and incentive to bear the costs of research that leads to better 
crops or improved sales. That is, after all, a fundamental cost of 
doing business. At the very least, we ought to ensure that such grants 
are awarded on a competitive basis after adequate peer review.
  Mr. President, there is similar earmarking in the Agricultural 
Research Service budget--set-asides for improving postharvest 
technologies for apples, for hops research, and the enhancement of 
peanut flavor quality. The list goes on and on. I would not be 
surprised if any of these projects was to be among the first that the 
President strikes with the line-item veto.
  Since a reduction of 20 percent in the overall budget should be 
recognized, I intend to support the bill. But I will also be inclined 
to support vetoes of some items in the legislation.


                              karnal bunt

  Mr. President, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to take 
this opportunity to discuss an ongoing issue that has severely affected 
the wheat industry in Arizona. Karnal bunt was discovered in Arizona in 
March 1996. Growers and seed producers have been hard hit since then, 
and progress has been made only in the area of compensation. USDA 
continues to hold the wheat-seed industry under a Karnal bunt-spore 
quarantine, a decision that has devastated this once stable and 
profitable industry. Though Karnal bunt poses no health threat to 
humans or animals, USDA refuses to lift the quarantine. Furthermore, 
the results of tests conducted by the USDA Agriculture Research Service 
scientists support findings by the University of Arizona that spores 
from ryegrass can severely bunt wheat. The science in this area is very 
involved, but what it boils down to is that USDA officials continue to 
contend that there exist two separate spores for bunting wheat; they 
refuse to acknowledge the Agriculture Research Service test results. 
These results show that we are talking about one and the same spore, 
not two separate spores. Yet ryegrass and wheat continue to be treated 
differently, one is not quarantined but the other is. Arizona remains 
the only State under quarantine.
  Mr. President, we are talking about an Arizona industry that produced 
more than 335,000 tons of wheat in 1995 at a value of $46.2 million. 
The value of the 1996 crop before Karnal bunt was expected to top $80 
million. This year, Arizona wheatgrowers planted approximately 20 
percent less wheat due to Karnal bunt restrictions. Dr. Bruce Beatty of 
the University of Arizona estimates losses of more than $100 million, 
an estimate given in Federal court testimony that has not been 
challenged by the USDA. Obviously, the wheat industry plays a vital 
role in the economy of Arizona.
  In a June 19 speech made to the International Grains Council, 
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman stated that ``perhaps the 
greatest threat to free trade is phony science.'' He continued, 
``Unfounded sanitary and phytosanitary objections have the potential to 
wreck the delicate balance of fairness we are trying to establish.'' 
Fairness is all Arizona seeks. The USDA policy in addressing the Karnal 
bunt issue has failed. Science has shown that severe bunting of wheat 
can occur from spores determined to be ryegrass in nature from Oregon, 
Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. Yet Arizona remains the only State 
under quarantine. Therefore, I call on the Secretary to lift the 
quarantine that has wreaked havoc on the Arizona wheat industry.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend Senators Cochran and Bumpers for 
the excellent bill they crafted to fund many crucial programs affecting 
American agriculture. They have done a superb job of balancing the 
competing yet meritorious interests covered in this legislation. It was 
a pleasure working with them as a new member of the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, and I thank them for the generous way in which they 
responded to my requests to ensure that the needs of North Dakota 
farmers and ranchers were addressed.
  There is one issue which was not addressed in this bill which is of 
great concern to me. I hope it will be addressed in conference. The 
buildings and facilities account of the Cooperative State Research, 
Extension, and Education Service received no funding in this bill. 
While I understand the chairman's desire not to continue to fund this 
construction account, I think it is unfair not to fulfill our 
responsibilities to complete the projects in the pipeline. There are a 
number of institutions in this category. These institutions have 
already received partial Federal funding, have met all the program 
requirements, including their 50-percent State matching requirement, 
but they cannot be completed unless the conference committee provides 
the balance of the Federal funding needed to do so.
  North Dakota State University [NDSU] falls into this category, and it 
is a unique case. Since fiscal year 1992, it has received approximately 
$1.9 million in Federal funds for an animal care research facility. It 
was not until June 30, 1995, when the House indicated in its report on 
the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations bill that it was making 
an ``in depth review of policies and practices related to this 
program,'' that there was any indication that the program might be 
changed. In fact, it was not until September 28, 1995, that we had 
notice that time might be of importance and that it was the conference 
committee's intent to terminate the program after fiscal year 1997.
  Since North Dakota has a biennial legislature, which did not meet in 
1996, it could not meet its 50-percent cost share requirement in 1996. 
When the legislature met early in 1997, it appropriated the relevant 
State cost share funds for this facility. Let me repeat, the only 
reason NDSU did not meet the committee's 1996 requirement is that it 
could not since our State legislature did not meet.
  The animal care facility at North Dakota State University is an 
extremely important project for the State and the region. Livestock 
production is a $1 billion industry in our State. It is likely to grow. 
But livestock disease is always a threat to the industry, especially 
some of the anabiotic-resistant organisms and viruses we have to deal 
with today. Work in this proposed facility can help protect incomes in 
the livestock industry by reducing livestock disease and deaths, 
contributing to the development of more effective pharmaceuticals and 
helping to ensure the quality and safety of food products. This 
facility is absolutely crucial to the future health and growth of 
agriculture in our region.
  Not to provide the balance of the Federal funds necessary to complete 
this facility, when North Dakota State University and the North Dakota 
State Legislature acted in good faith, seems unfair to me, and I urge 
my colleagues on the conference committee to seek an equitable solution 
to this problem.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking members, Senators Cochran and 
Bumpers, and their excellent staffs, especially Becky Davies and Galen 
Fountain, for all their help on this bill.


                            Asthma Inhalers

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to highlight my particular support 
for one provision in the committee report for this bill and express my 
concern with proposed Food and Drug Administration rulemaking that 
would adversely effect asthma patients.

[[Page S7945]]

  First, I'd like to note my own personal interest in the issue. My own 
children suffer from asthma and I appreciate only too well the impact 
of this condition on children and their families. As a result, I 
strongly support efforts to ensure that asthmatics have access to the 
safest and most effective treatment.
  The agency's recent actions, however, suggest that remote, even 
hypothetical environmental concerns might take precedence over the 
direct concerns for the lives and health of America's substantial 
asthmatic population. In March of this year, the agency issued an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth the criteria by 
which it would ban certain CFC-propelled metered-dose inhalers [MDI's] 
from sale in this country. The proposal was apparently developed in 
response to concerns about ozone depletion.
  But this ozone depletion is already subject to international treaty 
provisions of the Montreal protocol that ensure the timely removal of 
products using CFC's. These medical devices are covered by those 
provisions, even though they only contribute a fraction of 1 percent of 
the overall atmospheric chlorine that threatens the ozone. Now the 
agency proposes to speed up the ban on those products in pursuit of 
some environmental gain--but at the risk of patients with asthma.
  There is currently only one MDI, of approximately 70, that is not 
propelled by CFC's. Removing any or all of these products too early may 
threaten the health of some patients, particularly the increasing 
number of American children with asthma. How will the agency address a 
situation where a CFC-free product with an active ingredient is not 
labeled for children when the proposed rule would remove from the 
market a CFC-propelled product with the same ingredient that is labeled 
for children? How is the health of those children promoted through such 
a policy? Why is the agency considering removing otherwise legal 
products from the market, products proven to be beneficial for 
children, at a time when it laments the lack of adequately labeled 
products for children? And further, how are children, health care 
costs, and the Federal budget benefited by this bureaucratically 
created monopoly?
  If the agency believes that hypothetical environmental concerns can 
justify speeding up an international treaty that attempts to 
accommodate the health of these 5 million children with asthma, then I 
urge them to justify that position before the relevant committees of 
Congress. In the meantime, I urge the FDA to carefully consider the 
merits of the rulemaking they are proposing and whether alternative 
approaches might better serve the health of America's asthmatic 
children.


                Amendment Nos. 973 Through 976, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the previous order, there is 
permitted the offering of a managers' amendment.
  Senator Bumpers and I have been working to identify requests from 
Senators for inclusion in this managers' amendment, and we have now 
prepared a managers' amendment and it includes the following four 
amendments:
  An amendment to be offered by myself and Senator Bumpers on behalf of 
Senators Daschle, Dorgan, Johnson, Conrad and Baucus, regarding the 
Livestock Indemnity Assistance Program; an amendment proposed by 
Senators Grams and Wellstone regarding the planting of wild rice; an 
amendment proposed by Senator Craig regarding inspection and 
certification of agricultural processing equipment; an amendment 
proposed by Senator DeWine on the Orphan Feeding Program in Haiti.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes 
     amendments numbered 973 through 976, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 973

       At the end of the bill insert the following new section:
       ``Sec.  . From proceeds earned from the sale of grain in 
     the disaster reserve established in the Agricultural Act of 
     1970, the Secretary may use up to an additional $23 million 
     to implement a livestock indemnity program as established in 
     PL 105-18.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 974

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated 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)

       On page 66, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 728. 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. GRAMS. This technical amendment, which I offer with Senator 
Wellstone, simply provides that if a producer decides to grow wild rice 
on acres on which he receives Agricultural Market Transition Act [AMTA] 
payments, that producer's AMTA payment will be reduced on those acres.
  This amendment ensures that wild rice producers, who do not receive 
any kind of program payment, do not have to compete against producers 
who unfairly grow wild rice plus collect farm payments on the same 
acreage. In short, it ensures fairness by prohibiting double dipping 
and keeps producers on an equal playing field.
  USDA once believed that the substance of this amendment could be 
accomplished through regulation but later indicated that legislation is 
necessary.
  This same amendment was approved during consideration of last year's 
Agriculture appropriations on a voice vote but was removed during 
conference with other provisions for reasons unrelated to the substance 
of the amendment.
  I understand the amendment I offer has been approved by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senators Lugar 
and Harkin. I want to thank each of them for their assistance in this 
regard.
  I also understand that this amendment has been accepted by the 
chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senators Cochran and Bumpers.
  Accordingly, I would ask the chairman to accept this amendment I 
offer today with Senator Wellstone.


                           amendment no. 975

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to inspect or 
   certify agricultural products unless the Secretary of Agriculture 
inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes a 
 fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that is similar 
     to the inspection and certification of agricultural products)

       On page 66, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC.  . INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL 
                   PROCESSING EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none 
     of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act for 
     any fiscal year may be used to carry out section 203(h) of 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) 
     unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies 
     agricultural processing equipment, and imposes a fee for the 
     inspection and certification, in a manner that is similar to 
     the inspection and certification of agricultural products 
     under that section, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Relationship to Other Law.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out the 
     Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or the 
     Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.).

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment relative 
to the inspection of equipment used in the production of agricultural 
products. For years, FSIS has inspected and certified all equipment 
used in processing agricultural products. However, FSIS announced on 
May 2, 1996, its intent to discontinue its prior approval process.
  While the FSIS proposal is still pending, no system of prior approval 
has been developed anywhere at USDA.
  Mr. President, the Craig amendment would establish a fee for service 
system for equipment inspection within AMS, which currently inspects 
processed agriculture products. Let me stress: The system would be 
entirely voluntary. Those equipment manufacturers who choose to 
participate would pay for the service and, if the equipment qualifies, 
become AMS certified.

[[Page S7946]]

  This proposal is self-funding and would use the existing trust fund 
established in section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
1946. By providing a certification process to replace the FSIS system, 
the amendment would both reduce the risk that unacceptable equipment 
could be purchased and installed in processing plants and enhance 
exports of processing equipment.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the support of the managers of the bill 
in adopting this amendment.


                           amendment no. 976

    (Purpose: To require the United States Agency for International 
  Development to use at least the same amount of funds made available 
   under title II of Public Law 480 to carry out the orphan feeding 
 program in Haiti during fiscal year 1998 as was used by the Agency to 
             carry out the program during fiscal year 1997)

       On page 53, line 3, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, of the amount of funds 
     made available under title II of said Act, the United States 
     Agency for International Development should use at least the 
     same amount of funds to carry out the orphan feeding program 
     in Haiti during fiscal year 1998 as was used by the Agency to 
     carry out the program during fiscal year 1997''.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my amendment is simple and to the point. 
It urges the U.S. Agency for International Development to maintain the 
same level of resources for orphan feeding programs in Haiti in fiscal 
year 1998 as it provided in fiscal year 1997.
  The total funding level for Public Law 480 title II food programs is 
projected to stay the same for fiscal year 1998 as was appropriated for 
fiscal year 1997. Therefore, I believe that keeping the same level of 
such resources for this particular program should not be contentious, 
especially when my colleagues understand who the beneficiaries of this 
program are.
  Mr. President, many facilities in Haiti have to care for a truly vast 
number of orphans--and also for an increasing number of abandoned and 
neglected children. In the Port-au-Prince area alone, Christian Relief 
Services provides Public Law 480 title II food assistance to 70 
orphanages. The Adventist Development and Relief Agency also supports 
some 46 orphanages in the southern rural areas. Simply stated, there 
are numerous orphanages throughout this country which take care of 
thousands upon thousands of orphaned and abandoned children.

  I have traveled to Haiti four times in the last few years and have 
visited many orphanages. I can give you a first-hand account of some of 
their heart-breaking stories. The flow of desperate children into these 
orphanages is constant--and these institutions face an increasing 
challenge in accommodating all of these needy children.
  Take the case of Notre Dame de Victoires, an orphanage run by Sister 
Veronique. She will not turn down a single child that is dropped off at 
her facility. She also makes frequent visits to the local hospitals 
where babies, after being born, are abandoned. This particular 
orphanage takes care of the sickest of the sick. They get no means of 
support other than the food administered to them through CRS, which in 
turn receives its resources through AID.
  Mr. President, let me make it clear what this amendment does. The 
current program guarantees one meal a day to these orphans. My 
amendment would ensure that these meals keep coming. I am not talking 
about medical assistance, clothing, or anything else. Just one meal. 
These orphanages still have to find sources of support for the other 
meals and other necessary assistance for these children.
  According to AID, $238,000 worth of food went indirectly to 
orphanages in fiscal year 1996. If this figure is accurate, this is 
less than 1 percent of the total food resources allocated by AID for 
Haiti. Specifically, in fiscal year 1996 only 506 metric tonnes of 
food--out of a total of 50,000 metric tonnes provided by AID--went 
toward feeding children in orphanages. This is just a drop in the 
bucket of AID resources.
  Now, I have urged AID to maintain the current level of resources 
allocated for feeding orphans in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 
1998. AID officials assured me that they will do just that. In fact, 
they spoke to the relevant relief agencies about the situation and 
confirmed that this could be done.
  My original intent was to earmark this program, requiring AID to 
implement what has been promised. After numerous conversations between 
my staff and AID, and after their repeated assurances, the amendment I 
am offering states that AID simply should honor its commitment. This 
amendment would make AID's commitment not a personal assurance to me, 
but a commitment to the U.S. Senate. And if this language is kept in 
conference and signed into law, the commitment will be thus extended to 
the entire U.S. Congress.
  Mr. President, I am not asking for any more money than the orphanages 
are currently receiving from AID. This is essential for the survival of 
many thousands of Haitian children living in overcrowded orphanages. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this important amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, that statements of the 
Senators accompanying the amendments be printed in the Record, and that 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 973 through 976), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, that concludes action on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill that is contemplated for this evening. Under the 
order that has been entered, there will be consideration of specified 
amendments tomorrow morning, and then we will vote on passage of the 
bill.

                          ____________________