[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.
____________________