[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8297-S8330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am hopeful that we can continue now
with consideration of amendments of Senators who wish to offer them on
the agriculture appropriations bill. We sent word out through the
cloakrooms at 3 o'clock that we were prepared to conclude consideration
and approve amendments, recommend acceptance of Senators' amendments,
which have been brought to the attention of the managers, and those
that could not be agreed upon, we would offer them for Senators and
get votes on them if they wanted us to do that, or move to table them
and dispose of them in that way, so that we could complete action on
this bill. We need to complete action on the bill today and move on to
other matters.
I notice the distinguished Senator from Iowa is on the floor. He has
an amendment to offer. I am happy to yield the floor to permit him to
do so.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of
the floor during the debate on the agriculture appropriations bill be
granted to Sarah Lister, a member of my staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3175
(Purpose: To provide funding for the Food Safety Initiative with an
offset)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself, and Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an
amendment numbered 3175.
Mr. HARKIN. 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 67, after line 23, insert the following:
SEC. 7. FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--In addition to the amounts made available
under other provisions of this Act, there are appropriated,
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
to carry out activities described in the Food Safety
Initiative submitted by the President for fiscal year 1999--
(1) $98,000 to the Chief Economist;
(2) $906,000 to the Economic Research Service;
(3) $8,920,000 to the Agricultural Research Service;
(4) $11,000,000 to the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service;
(5) $8,347,000 to the Food Safety and Inspection Service;
and
(6) $37,000,000 to the Food and Drug Administration.
1. Amendment of the No Net Cost Fund assessments to provide
for collection of all administrative costs not previously
covered and all crop insurance costs for tobacco. Section
106A of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, 7 U.S.C.
1445-1(c), is hereby amended by, in (d)(7) changing ``the
Secretary'' to ``the Secretary: and'' and by adding a new
clause. (d)(8) read as follows:
``(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection or other law, that with respect to the 1999 and
subsequent crops of tobacco for which price support is made
available and for which a Fund is maintained under this
section, an additional assessment shall be remitted over and
above that otherwise provided for in this subsection. Such
additional assessment shall be equal to: (1) the
administrative costs within the Department of Agriculture
that not otherwise covered under another assessment under
this section or under another provision of law; and (2) any
and all net losses in federal crop insurance programs for
tobacco, whether those losses be on price-supported tobacco
or on other tobaccos. The Secretary shall estimate those
administrative and insurance costs in advance. The Secretary
may make such adjustments in the assessment under this clause
for future crops as are needed to cover shortfalls or over-
collections. The assessment shall be applied so that the
additional amount to be collected under this clause shall be
the same for all price support tobaccos (and imported tobacco
of like kind) which are marketed or imported into the United
States during the marketing year for the crops covered by
this clause. For each domestically produced pound of tobacco
the assessment amount to be remitted under this clause shall
be paid by the purchaser of the tobacco. On imported tobacco,
the assessment shall be paid by the importer. Monies
collected pursuant to this section shall be commingled with
other monies in the No Net Cost Fund maintained under this
section. The administrative and crop insurance costs that are
taken into account in fixing the amount of the assessment
shall be a claim on the Fund and shall be transferred to the
appropriate account for the payment of administrative costs
and insurance costs at a time determined appropriate by the
Secretary. Collections under this clause shall not effect the
amount of any other collection established under this section
or under another provision of law but shall be enforceable in
the same manner as other assessments under this section and
shall be subject to the same sanctions for nonpayment.''
2. Amendment of the No Net Cost Account assessments to
provide for collection of all administrative cost not
previously covered and all crop insurance costs. Section 106B
of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 1445-2,
is amended by renumbering subsections ``(i)'' and ``(j)'' as
``(j)'' and ``(k)'' respectively, and by adding a new
subsection ``(i)'' to read as follows:
``(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section
or other law, the Secretary shall require with respect to the
1999 and subsequent crops of tobacco for which price support
is made available and for which an Account is maintained
under this section, that an additional assessment shall be
remitted over and above that otherwise provided for in this
subsection. Such additional assessment shall be equal to: (1)
the administrative costs within the Department of Agriculture
that are not otherwise covered under another assessment under
this section or under another provision of law; and (2) any
and all net losses in federal crop insurance programs for
tobacco, whether those losses be on price-supported tobacco
or on other tobaccos. The Secretary shall estimate those
administrative and insurance costs in advance. The Secretary
may make such adjustments in the assessments under this
clause for future crops as are needed to cover shortfalls or
over-collections. The assessment shall be applied so that the
additional amount to be collected under this clause shall be
the same for all price support tobaccos (and imported tobacco
of like kind) which are marketed or imported into the United
States during the marketing year for the crops covered by
this clause. For each domestically produced pound of tobacco
the assessment amount to be remitted under this clause shall
be paid by the purchaser of the tobacco. On imported tobacco,
the assessment shall be paid by the importer. Monies
collected pursuant to this section shall be commingled with
other monies in the No Net Cost Account maintained under this
section. The administrative and crop insurance costs that are
taken into account in fixing the amount of the assessment
shall be a claim on the Account and shall be transferred to
the appropriate account for the payment of administrative
costs and insurance costs at a
[[Page S8298]]
time determined appropriate by the Secretary.Collections
under this clause shall not effect the amount of any other
collection established under this section or under another
provision of law but shall be enforceable in the same manner
as other assessments under this section and shall be subject
to the same sanctions for nonpayment.''
3. Elimination of the Tobacco Budget Assessment.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of
Section 106(g) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, 7
USC 1445(g) shall not apply or be extended to the 1999 crops
of tobacco and shall not, in any case, apply to any tobacco
for which additional assessments have been rendered under
Sections 1 and 2 of this Act.
Section 4(g) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act (15 U.S.C. 714b(g)) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``$193,000,000'' and inserting ``$178,000,000''.
Amend the figure on page 12 line 20 by reducing the sum by
$13,500,000.
Amend page 12 line 25 by striking ``law.'' and inserting in
lieu thereof the following: ``law, and an additional
$13,500,000 is provided to be available on October 1, 1999
under the provisions of this paragraph.''
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my cosponsors on this amendment are
Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Torricelli, Durbin, Wellstone, Mikulski, and
Murray. I want them all added as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment that I just offered would
restore $66 million for the President's Food Safety Initiative, the
funding of which I believe should be a national priority. I understand
the constraints faced here on this subcommittee on spending. But food
safety is an increasing problem in this country. As the President has
pointed out, I think we ought to make food safety a priority. If there
is one thing we all do, it is that we all eat. And there are few things
more important than knowing that the food you are going to eat isn't
going to make you sick.
So this amendment really is to ensure that the health and safety of
American consumers is protected, and protected even better than it has
been in the past.
Again, Mr. President, I don't know the reason why this is happening.
But more and more frequently we are getting outbreaks of pathogens and
foodborne illnesses in this country.
Just last month, in June of 1998, there were 12 outbreaks of
foodborne illnesses in this country. Here is the chart that depicts
that. I know there are more dots here than 12. But there are 12
different outbreaks. Some outbreaks occurred in more than one State. So
we had 12 different outbreaks. It affected consumers in 41 States and
caused more than 7,000 illnesses.
That is in the month of June of this year. That is one month. That is
just the tip of the iceberg. It is estimated that there are millions of
cases and over 9,000 deaths per year in this country from foodborne
illnesses, including a lot of kids who need dialysis, or kidney
transplants, after eating food contaminated with what now has become a
well known pathogen, E. coli 0157H7. We all know that kids get it. They
get deathly ill from it. Many die. Those who do not go on kidney
dialysis have kidney transplants.
Here is the interesting thing. This pathogen, E. coli 0157H7, we all
read about. And you can talk to persons on the street and they know
about E. coli 0157H7. It didn't even exist 20 years ago. So we are
seeing new mutations. Twenty years ago, E. coli 0157H7 didn't even
exist, and today thousands of people are getting sick and dying from it
throughout the United States.
The E. coli 0157H7 are the blue dots. The white dots, the green dots,
and all these others--about six different ones here--E. coli 0157H7
outbreaks throughout the country in June.
One other outbreak, which affected hundreds of people in 12 States,
involved an unusual strain of Salmonella that came in breakfast
cereals. That is the one in the red dots here you can see all over the
United States.
I happen to be a cereal eater. I have eaten cereal--Cheerios,
Wheaties, and everything else--since I was a kid, obviously, and I am
sure everyone else has. If there is one thing that you think is really
safe, it is cereal. It is dry. It is roasted, toasted, baked, or
something. You get it in a box, you open it, put it in the bowl, put
milk on it, and you think it is safe. This is the first time that we
have ever had Salmonella occur in a dry cereal. Usually you get
Salmonella in raw eggs, or things like that, but not from cereal.
So, as I said, there is something happening that we have not seen
before in terms of the kinds of foods and the numbers of outbreaks and
the new pathogens that are affecting our country.
I always like to ask people when I talk about this in meetings in
Iowa and other places. I say, ``How many people here have ever gone out
to a restaurant to eat and you come home, you have had a nice meal out,
you watch the evening news, you go to bed, and at 2 o'clock in the
morning you wake up and there is a railroad train going through your
stomach, and you make a bee-line for the bathroom?''
Usually people start laughing. But they are nodding their heads. A
lot of those aren't even reported. And people are a little sluggish the
next day, they don't feel quite right the next day, productivity goes
down, but after 24 hours they are over it and move on. That is what I
mean. A lot of these aren't even reported, but it happens to people
every single day.
If that happens to me, and I get a little upset stomach, I get a
little sick, a little diarrhea the next day, or I feel a little down, I
move on, think what happens to a kid. What about a child? What about
someone 12, 13, or 10 years old? They are affected a lot worse than
that. Or an elderly person whose immune system may not be as strong as
someone my age. They are the ones who are getting hit harder and harder
by these foodborne pathogens.
This is really an appropriate time to be talking about this, during
the middle of a hot summer, because there is another interesting thing
about foodborne pathogens.
In 1997, and we know in previous years the same is true, the number
of foodborne illnesses always peaks in the summer, and they come down
in the winter. May to September is when we get our peak. Pathogens
flourish on the foods and any foods that aren't handled properly in the
summer heat. So during the summertime, we see the number of incidents
of foodborne pathogens going up. So this is a proper time to be talking
about it, in the summer months.
We can reduce the number of foodborne illnesses that we have in this
country.
We can reduce the incidence and severity of foodborne illnesses, and
the Food Safety Initiative that the President announced will provide
funding for necessary inspection, surveillance, research, and education
activities at both the USDA and the FDA to improve the level of food
safety in this country.
I will go over each one of those. First, inspection. The amendment
that I sent to the desk provides for increased spending to improve
inspection. Now, what kind of inspection are we talking about? Well,
the FDA inspects the 53,000 domestic food processing plants on the
average of once every 10 years. That is right, on the average of once
every 10 years, FDA inspects the plants that can our fruits, can our
vegetables, handle our produce and fresh fruits and things like that--
about once every 10 years. Right now, FDA inspects only about 2 percent
of imported produce, although consumption of these products is
increasing and imported produce has been linked to several outbreaks of
illnesses in recent years. So only 2 percent of imported produce is
even inspected by the FDA.
This amendment funds 250 new inspectors at FDA for this purpose. It
will also fund a program at USDA to implement the new inspection
procedures for meat inspection in State-inspected meat and poultry
plants. Right now, we have a Federal system. We also have State-
inspected meat and poultry plants, and this amendment would help fund
the implementation of these new--HACCP, as it is called--meat
inspection systems in our State-inspected meat and poultry plants.
So that is the first part, inspection.
The second part has to do with research and risk assessment. The Food
Safety Initiative seeks new funds for research and risk assessment. The
funding will lead to new rapid-testing methods to identify pathogens
before they can be spread far and wide. Funding for on-farm testing
will help determine where simple solutions such as vaccines can make
major improvements in the safety of food. So risk assessment and
research can point to
[[Page S8299]]
practical solutions that will get to it early on and make high-risk
foods a lot safer--I mean foods that are handled a lot, foods that are
used a lot in the summertime, maybe are handled and cooked outdoors,
that type of thing.
The third aspect of this amendment deals with education. This
amendment calls for funding for education programs for farmers, food
service workers, and consumers. I might just point out that consumer
food safety education is crucial as traditional homemaker education in
schools and at home is increasingly rare. Educating food service
workers is also important as more and more of us eat out or eat take-
out foods.
The last part is surveillance. In the case of these outbreaks in
June, extensive investigations were necessary before tainted products
could be identified and recalled. The Food Safety Initiative provides
new funds for the USDA and FDA to coordinate with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in identifying and controlling outbreaks
of illnesses from food; in other words, get better surveillance out
there to coordinate with CDC, USDA, and FDA--and that is not taking
place right now--so that if you do have an outbreak, you can contain it
and keep it in one locality without it spreading to other States. And
that is really important.
I will take this chart and again put it up here to show the outbreaks
that happened in June. What you can see is, you have an outbreak of E.
coli here in one State, and you see it spreading to other States, the
same strain, the same packages. Why would it be in Ohio, then in
Kansas, and then out here in Utah? Why would it be in those States all
at the same time? We know how fast we move food around this country.
You could have something slaughtered, processed, produced, and packaged
in one State and 24 hours later it is being eaten halfway across the
country. That is why you need good surveillance. If you find something
that has happened in one locality, you can coordinate with the CDC down
here in Atlanta, GA, and put the brakes on right away. We don't have
that kind of in-depth coordination and surveillance right now, and this
amendment would provide that.
Last October at a hearing before the Senate Ag Committee, numerous
producer, industry, and consumer groups called on the Federal
Government to increase resources for food safety in research,
education, risk assessment, and surveillance. I thought I might just
quote a couple of these.
Mike Doyle, Ph.D., on behalf of the American Meat Institute, the
Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Broiler Council, National
Food Processors Association, and the National Turkey Federation,
testified last October, and he said:
The problem we should be facing is how to prevent or reduce
pathogens in the food supply. Research, technology and
consumer education are the best and most immediate tools
available. Government can be most helpful by facilitating the
aggressive use of these tools to find new ways to protect
consumers.
A strategic plan for a prevention-oriented, farm-to-table
food safety research technology development and transfer that
engages the resources of the public and private sector must
be developed and fully funded.
Alan Janzen on behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
Gregg Page, President, Red Meat Group, Cargil, Inc., on behalf of the
American Meat Institute, said:
Congress can help ensure that there is reality in the laws
and regulations governing food safety by endorsing
educational activities focused on proper cooking and handling
practices and a comprehensive, coordinated and prioritized
approach to food safety research.
C. Manly Molpus, Grocery Manufacturers of America, in a letter dated
January 19, 1998, said:
With new, emerging food pathogens, FDA must have the
resources to recruit scientists and fund research and
surveillance. Increased resources will mean better, more
focused and planned scientific research programs.
So we have a lot of comments from the industry about the need to make
sure that this Food Safety Initiative is, indeed, fully funded.
Now, lastly, let me just point out where we get the offset for this
amendment. The offset has several components. The principal one would
complete the job of getting the U.S. taxpayer out of the business of
supporting the production of tobacco. It is a common question I hear:
If smoking is so bad and we are trying to get this tobacco bill passed
around here, then why is the Government subsidizing the production of
tobacco?
Well, it is not supposed to be. Under the 1982 No Net Cost Tobacco
legislation, the cost of the tobacco price support program is covered
by assessments made by tobacco companies and growers. But that is only
for the price support program. These assessments do not cover the cost
to the taxpayer of crop insurance on tobacco, nor do they cover the
administrative costs of the tobacco program or the various other
tobacco-related activities at the USDA. The total cost of these USDA
tobacco activities is about $60 million a year. Under this amendment,
tobacco companies will cover the cost of these USDA tobacco activities.
After all, it is the tobacco companies that benefit from having a
dependable supply of tobacco available to them.
So I think it is about time that we close this last little loophole
and have the tobacco growers and companies pay the $60 million that the
taxpayers are paying today.
So that is the first part of the offset. The second one is that we
get $15 million from the mandatory CCC computer account. These funds
are available to the USDA to be spent for data processing and
information technology services. Cutting this account will in no way
reduce the ability of the USDA to prepare for the Y2K problem at all.
So there is $15 million from this computer account.
And, lastly, we cut $13 million from the ARS buildings and facilities
account. Again, we do not propose to eliminate any building projects.
Rather, we propose to delay the money that would be obligated but not
spent during the fiscal year 1999.
In other words, the money would be obligated, but it would not be
spent. All projects would be allowed to continue development and
planning of these facilities. But there is no point in appropriating
money in fiscal year 1999, money that will not be spent, when there is
a critical need for food safety funds to fund the Food Safety
Initiative.
I see two of my colleagues on the floor who have worked very hard on
this Food Safety Initiative, who are strong supporters of it. I yield
the floor at this time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Mulry,
a Brookings fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor
during consideration of the Harkin amendment on the agriculture
appropriations bill, S. 2159.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I make a second unanimous consent request, if there is no
objection from the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, since it
does not appear there is another Senator on the floor, I ask unanimous
consent to follow the Senator from New Jersey in making remarks in
support of the Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin
amendment to fund President Clinton's Food Safety Initiative. In
supporting this effort to fund food safety in our country, I must admit
to some surprise about the debate. Through the years in this Congress,
we have had controversial debates with legitimately and strongly held
different views. This is a difference of opinion that I just do not
understand.
It is now estimated that there are 9,000 Americans per year losing
their lives because of food safety. There is a rising cost in human
life and suffering because of compromises in the quality of food
consumed in America. In a nation where we are accustomed to automobile
accidents and crime, the leading reason in our country to visit an
emergency room is because of food that you purchased and consumed. It
is not
[[Page S8300]]
an insubstantial cost to our economy. Mr. President, 6.5 million people
suffering from foodborne illness; $22 billion in cost to our economy.
Two years ago, on a bipartisan basis, across philosophical lines as a
national community, we came to recognize that this cost was not
sustainable and mostly was not necessary. This Congress began to fund,
under President Clinton's leadership, an initiative to ensure the
quality and safety of our Nation's food supply. We are now about to
enter into the second year of that program, which has included hiring
more inspectors, enhancing surveillance and early warning, increasing
research into pathogens like the E. coli bacteria, and to develop more
fast, cost-efficient, and more modern detection methods. The second
year is about to begin, but a preliminary judgment has been made on the
budget of the Government to abandon the effort: No research, no new
technology, no new inspectors--nothing.
It would be a legitimately held view to come to the floor of this
Senate and say, ``The President's plan has been tried and has been
evaluated, it is understood, but there is a better idea.'' There may be
better ideas. There is no monopoly of wisdom in constructing this plan.
But to argue, in the U.S. Senate, in the face of this rising problem,
that the better answer is to do nothing, confounds logic. I do not
understand it--governmentally or politically.
The American people may be under the impression that their food
supply is safe. It is certainly true by world standards; compared with
many nations, it is safe. But it is not what they believe. Mr.
President, 9,000 deaths is unconscionable, but it is not even the full
extent of the problem. Some years ago, like most Americans not
recognizing the full extent of this problem, I heard testimony from a
constituent of mine named Art O'Connell. His 23-month-old daughter,
Katie, had visited a fast-food restaurant in New Jersey. The next day
she wasn't feeling well. Two days later she was in a hospital. By that
night her kidneys and her liver began to fail. A day later, she was
dead.
I thought it was about as bad a story as I could hear, and then in
the same hearing I heard mothers and fathers from around America whose
children had also been exposed to the E. coli bacteria, and realized
that sometimes the child that dies can be the fortunate child. The E.
coli bacteria will leave an infant blind, deaf, paralyzed for life. In
the elderly, it can strike more quickly and also result in death.
It is a crisis in our country, but it is one that will not solve
itself. Indeed, it is estimated over the next decade, the death toll
and the suffering from foodborne illness in America will increase by 10
to 15 percent per decade.
There are, to be certain, a number of reasons--the sources of food
supplies, a more complex distribution system, failures to prepare food
properly, and almost certainly because of rising imports of food. Food
imports since 1992 have increased by 60 percent. Yet, notably,
inspections have fallen by 22 percent. There are 53,000 potential sites
in America involved in the production of food for the American people--
53,000. The United States has 700 inspectors. To place this in context,
in the State of New Jersey where we operate a gaming industry, in
Atlantic City, we have 14 casinos. We operate with 850 inspectors. What
my State government in New Jersey is doing to assure that the roulette
wheels and gaming tables of Atlantic City are safe for gamers, the
United States of America is not doing for the food supply of the entire
country. Mr. President, 700 inspectors for this country.
To be honest, I do not argue that, even if Senator Harkin's amendment
is accepted, that the Members of this Senate can face their
constituents honestly and claim that this problem is being solved, no
less managed. It would, in truth, require much more. Over the years, in
working with Senator Durbin, we have outlined legislation that is far
more comprehensive, in my judgment, much more attuned to what is
required--to create a single food agency to replace the current 12
Government agencies involved in food safety, to remove agencies whose
principal mission is to prevent the consumption and sale of food from
inspection--to remove an inherent conflict of interest in the
management of the Nation's food supply; and certainly to give the
Department of Agriculture a mandatory recall authority so the moment we
know there is a problem and health is endangered, we can eliminate the
distribution problems.
All these things are required, but we are asking for none of that
today. All that Senator Harkin is asking is to fund at the commitment
levels we decided on a year ago, to do the second half of a 2-year
program to provide for the inspections, the technologies of this food
safety program.
Mr. President, many of us years ago learned of a different period in
American history through the words of Upton Sinclair in his writing,
``The Jungle.'' At a time when the Federal Government was not doing
little to ensure the safety of our food supply for our people, it was
doing nothing.
Most Americans will be surprised to learn that, as they read as a
student of Upton Sinclair, the technology of food inspection has not
really changed in these several generations. The principal instrument
used by the U.S. Government to ensure that meat is safe is the human
nose of an inspector. The second line of defense is his eyesight. As
food comes down the assembly line, assuring that it is safe is based on
the instinct of those inspectors, albeit inspecting 2 percent of the
Nation's imported food supply.
Part of this program is to advance the technologies which we are
using in every other aspect of American life, the extraordinary
technologies of our time which uniquely, incredibly and inexplicably
are not being used on a very item of life and death of our citizens--
our food supply. This program will develop and advance those
technologies.
New pathogens are being found all the time. The E. coli bacteria
itself is changing. This program will research to understand those
pathogens, to use our technology to defeat them in biomedicine.
As the Senator from Iowa has said, we also need enhanced
surveillance. Because we live in a time when the food supply of one
State can appear in another State within hours, a single source of
contaminated food can be across America in days. We need to track it
through surveillance to find it and eliminate it.
Of course, as I suggested, we need more inspectors to also ensure the
presence of the Government is there.
All we are doing is attempting to fulfill what the American people
believe they already have. Most Americans, if you were to ask them
today, would tell you: ``Yes, there's a Federal inspector where that
meat is produced, those fruits and vegetables, that syrup, they are
there, and we are using the best technology and we are understanding
the pathogens.'' We are asking that this Senate help fund that which we
committed to 2 years ago and that which the American people already
believe exists.
Finally, there is ample time for us to disagree on many issues. There
are legitimate concerns about which we can differ. If ever there was an
issue about which we could come together in common cause, this is that
issue. This is not an expansion of Government power, it is a power
which the Government has had for all the 20th century. It is not
draining significant resources we do not have. It is $100 million in a
modest program.
I am proud to join with Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin and Senator
Kennedy in offering this amendment. I hope we can receive an
affirmative vote and proceed with this program and avoid all that
suffering, which is just so unnecessary, and begin to turn the corner
on dealing with this very important problem.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from New Jersey
for his fine statement, as well as my colleague from Iowa. The Senator
from New Jersey and I have introduced legislation which attempts to
streamline this entire process. It is mind-boggling to try to come to
grips with the many different agencies and laws that apply to food
safety inspection in America. Though that is not the object of the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa, it is something which I hope on
another day the Senate will address. To
[[Page S8301]]
think that there are some six different Federal agencies with the
responsibility of food inspection, some 35 different laws and a crazy
quilt of jurisdiction which not only wastes taxpayers' dollars, but
creates risk for consumers is unacceptable.
What we address today is more immediate, different than a change of
jurisdiction within agencies. It is to address the immediate need to
assure the consumers of America that its Government is doing all in its
power to protect them at their family tables.
This issue first came to my attention about 3 or 4 years ago. I
certainly heard about the E. coli outbreaks in Jack-in-the-Box and the
others that were well publicized, but I received a letter when I was a
Member of the House of Representatives from a lady in Chicago. I didn't
represent the city, but she sent me a letter when she heard we were
debating modernizing our food inspection system.
In this handwritten letter, Nancy Donley of Chicago told the tragic
story of going to the local grocery store to buy hamburger for her 6-
year-old son Alex, coming home and preparing it. Alex ate the hamburger
and within a few days was dead, dead from E. coli-contaminated
hamburger, which led to one of the most gruesome episodes one can
imagine.
Your heart breaks to think of a mother and father standing helplessly
by a hospital bed wondering what is taking the life away from this
little boy whom they love so much. She tells in graphic detail how
Alex's body organ by organ shut down until he finally expired because
of contamination in a food product.
It brought to my attention an issue which I had not thought about for
a long time, because you see, unlike some Members of the Senate, I have
some personal knowledge when it comes to this issue, not just because I
eat, which all of us do, but 30 years ago, I worked my way through
college working in a slaughterhouse in East St. Louis, IL. I spent 12
months of my life there, and I saw the meat inspection process and the
meat processing firsthand.
I still eat meat, and I still believe America has the safest food
supply in the world, but I am convinced that we need to do more. The
world has changed in 30 years. The distribution network of food in the
United States has changed. When I was a young boy, it was a local
butcher shop buying from a local farmer processing for my family. Now
look at it--nationwide and worldwide distribution, sometimes of a great
product but sometimes of a great problem. That some contaminated beef
last year led to the greatest meat recall in our history is just a
suggestion of the scope of this problem. A contamination in one plant
in one city can literally become a national problem.
This chart that Senator Harkin of Iowa brought before us doesn't tell
what happened across the United States in 1 year. It tells us what
happened in 1 month, June of 1998. These were the outbreaks and recalls
in the United States of America. I am sorry to say, with the possible
exception of New York, my home State of Illinois was hit the hardest,
for you see, we had over 6,000 people in the Chicago area who were
felled by some food-related illness that might have been associated
with potato salad--6,000 people. We are still searching to find exactly
what caused it.
We had a hearing with Senator Collins of Maine just a few days ago in
the Governmental Affairs Committee which took a look at the importation
of fruits and vegetables. She focused--and I think it was an excellent
hearing--on Guatemalan raspberries that came into the United States
contaminated with cyclospora, and, of course, caused illnesses for many
people across the United States.
The fascinating thing, the challenging part of that testimony was
that if you look at our inspection process today, there is no way for
us to detect the presence of that bacteria, nor is it easy for any
doctor to diagnose a person as having been stricken by that illness.
As we trace those imports in the United States of fruits and
vegetables, we find that we face a new challenge in addition to this
broadening distribution network. It is a challenge where our appetites
have changed, and where we enjoy the bounty of produce from all over
the world. So our concerns which used to be focused on the United
States and partially on imported fruits and vegetables have expanded
dramatically. Now we worry about imported fruits and vegetables from
the far corners of the world.
We worry about contaminations which we never heard of before which
could, in fact, affect literally millions of Americans. The challenge
of food inspection is changing dramatically.
Let me give you another illustration about what is happening. Most of
us can recall, when we were children, when mom would bake a cake or
make cookies, and she finished putting it all together, and you were
standing dutifully by waiting for the cookies or the cake, she would
hand you the mixing bowl--and you would reach in with a spoon or
spatula and taste a little bit of the dough, cake batter, whatever it
might be. As you see, I did that many times; and I appreciated it very
much.
You know, now that is dangerous. You know why it is dangerous?
Because of the raw eggs that are part of the mix. It used to be that
the salmonella was traced to the shell of the egg, so if the shell fell
in the batter, you would say, ``Oh, that's something we need to be
concerned about.'' But, sadly, within the last few years they have
found the salmonella inside the egg. So you can never be certain
handing that mixing bowl to a tiny tot in the kitchen that you are not
inviting a foodborne illness that could be very serious.
Things are changing. We need to change with them. When President
Clinton stepped forward and said, ``America's concerned about this
problem and American families realize they can't protect themselves as
individuals, they're counting on us to do the job,'' he challenged us
to fund it. Sadly, we are not funding it in this bill.
That is why the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy,
Senator Torricelli, and I are offering this amendment to increase the
funds.
What will we do with them?
First, increase the number of inspectors. We clearly need more people
on the borders taking at look at the process and the fresh food coming
into the United States. I have been there. I have been to Nogales,
Mexico, Nogales, AZ. I have seen that border crossing.
I have followed the FDA inspection all the way from the trucks to the
samples taken into the laboratory in Los Angeles, CA, to be tested; and
I can tell you that, though it is good, it is far from perfect.
In most instances, by the time they have tested that sample of fruits
or sample of vegetables, and if they find anything wrong with it, it is
long gone, it is already on the grocery shelves somewhere in America.
Oh, they are going to be more watchful the next time around, but they
cannot protect us with the resources presently available.
President Clinton said we can do more, and we should do more. We also
need to look into this whole question of surveillance. As we noted
here, this distribution system around the Nation really calls on us to
move quickly. If we find a problem at a processing plant in my home
State of Illinois, we need to know very quickly whether or not it has
been spread across the United States so that recalls can take place.
We need more research, too, research on these foodborne illnesses,
how they can be averted and avoided. I think we can achieve that, as we
should. The Senator from New Jersey had the most telling statistic:
53,000 different food production sites around America, 700 inspectors.
We will never have an inspector for every site. We certainly can do
better than we have at the present time.
Let me also say that the offset that the Senator from Iowa is
offering to us is a very good one. I am personally aware of it because
a large part of it represents an amendment which I have offered for
several years, first in the House and then in the Senate. It answers a
question which virtually all of us, as politicians--Senators and
Members of Congress--face.
How many times I have gone into a town meeting and someone raises
their hand and says, ``Senator, let me ask you a question. If you tell
us that tobacco is so dangerous, why does the Federal Government
subsidize it?'' Well, I will tell you, there is not a very good answer
to that question.
[[Page S8302]]
This amendment being offered by the Senator from Iowa finally puts to
rest and answers that question. We are going to stop subsidizing the
growing of tobacco in America. We are going to stop asking taxpayers
across the United States to pay for a subsidy to the tobacco-growing
industry.
I have offered this amendment before. I have never had a better use
of it than what the Senator from Iowa is offering today. Take the
taxpayers' money now being invested in the cultivation and growth of
this deadly product, tobacco, take that money, put it into food safety.
There is a real justice to this amendment and what the Senator is
offering so that we can say to people, we are not only stopping this
Federal subsidy of the cultivation of tobacco, we are trying to protect
children, the elderly, and those who have some health problems that may
make them particularly vulnerable. So I heartily support the offset
which is being offered by the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to make it clear for the Record that the Senator
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has been the leader in going after this
aspect of the taxpayer funding of tobacco at USDA for years. So I just
thank the Senator for letting me capitalize on that and use this money
that he has tried so valiantly over the years to stop--to use that for
this offset for the Food Safety Initiative.
I appreciate the Senator's support and his willingness to let us use
the offset that he has been trying to kill for years, because it really
is unfair for the taxpayers of this country to spend $60 million every
year in support of USDA activities that go to help grow more tobacco in
this country. If they want to do it, let the tobacco companies fund it
themselves. I thank the Senator for his years on this effort in this
regard.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me say to the Senator from Iowa, I am happy to join
him in this effort. We could not think of a better investment of this
money than to take it away from the promotion of a product which causes
so much death and disease and put it into the kind of health initiative
which the Senator from Iowa has suggested.
Let me just say this: Mark my words. Within a few weeks we will read
in the newspapers again of some outbreak of food contamination and food
illness. We will be alarmed and saddened by the stories of the
vulnerable--the children, the elderly, and those who are in a frail
medical condition who have become victims because of it.
Each of us, in our own way, if it affects our State will express our
outrage, our disappointment; and we will promise that we will do
something about it. Well, let us be honest. This is the amendment that
might do something about it. We can give these speeches--and we will--
but the real question is, Are we prepared to back up our concern in
front of a television camera with our votes on the floor of the U.S.
Senate?
The Senator from Iowa is offering us an opportunity to really be
certain that the American people understand what our commitment is to
this important issue. I thank him for his commitment. I am happy to
join him as a cosponsor of this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor
privileges during the debate on the agriculture appropriations bill be
granted to Diane Robertson, Stacey Sachs, and Mary Reichman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in thanking my friend and
colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and Senator Durbin, and others,
for providing the leadership in what I consider to be one of the most
important amendments introduced as part of this legislation. I hope
that we will be successful, because it addresses a problem that has
been outlined by my colleagues on the floor of the Senate about what
has been happening in our food supply over recent years.
What we have seen, Mr. President, over the period of the last 5
years, has been the doubling of imported food into the United States.
We expect that the food that has come into the United States will
double again over the next 5 years.
We are finding that a third of all of the fruit, and over half of the
seafood consumed in this country is being imported into the United
States. And those figures are going to grow over the next 5 years. At
the same time, we have seen a significant reduction in resources
dedicated to inspections. Over the period of the last 5 years, there
has been a 22-percent reduction of support for inspections and food
safety in the Food and Drug Administration.
The Department of Agriculture has primary responsibility for meat and
poultry. The Food and Drug Administration has primary responsibility
for inspection of all other food. The increase in imports in these
other food categories--produce, seafood, etc.--inspected by FDA would
be one factor which could justify the increase that is included in the
Harkin amendment. But that really does not tell the whole story, Mr.
President.
To understand the whole story, we have to understand the very
dramatic changes which have taken place in terms of our food supply.
For example, let's look at E. coli, which occurs naturally in our
bodies. In the last 20 years, E. coli has mutated to be more virulent
and even deadly. This was illustrated today by my friend and colleague
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and illustrated by the food disease
outbreaks that we have seen from January to July of 1998.
We are not just saying that the appropriations haven't kept up with
the need, as important as that is, and that ought to justify it, but
there are dramatic differences in the eating habits of the American
people. More people are eating out. More people are eating products
that are coming from different countries. More Americans are storing
their food over longer periods of time. All of this is having an impact
in terms of the increased risk from foodborne pathogens and the
increased occurrence of foodborne illness.
The bottom line, Mr. President, is that foodborne diseases are much,
much more dangerous today than they were 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10
years ago. You are getting a change in quantity and the severity of the
illnesses, the virulence of foodborne pathogens and their impact on
human beings.
Antimicrobial resistance contributes to this phenomenon, and those in
the pharmaceutical industry see it every single day. They believe that
this is one of the very significant new phenomena in the whole area of
health science. It is reflected in the severity of these illnesses.
They are deadly today. They don't just give you a stomach ache; they
kill you.
That is why I believe this amendment is of enormous importance. We
need to have the kind of support that this amendment provides, to make
sure that we, as Americans, are going to have the safest food supply in
the world. We do. But it is threatened. For us not to understand the
risk is foolishness. I believe this amendment, with its offsets, is
justifiable and of enormous importance.
I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership in this area. I
commend him for his legislation and for the seriousness with which he
has approached it and for his constancy in pursuit of it. We are very
much in your debt.
Even with this, Mr. President, I think all of us have a
responsibility of watching, and watching carefully, what is happening
to our food supply as we move ahead in these next months and years.
Tragically, if we fail to do this, and we see the kind of tragedies
that are bound to take place, we will have, once again, I think, in an
important way, failed to meet our responsibilities to provide
protections for the American people in the most basic and fundamental
way.
Every day, more Americans are stricken with food poisoning. Children
and the elderly are especially at risk.
Outbreaks of foodborne illness are increasing. The toxicity of
bacteria is increasing. Yet resources to combat these festering
problems are decreasing. Without additional resources, FDA and the
Department of Agriculture cannot act effectively to prevent these
illnesses. The American public deserves better.
[[Page S8303]]
In the last two months: over 400 people became ill and 74 were
hospitalized in 21 states from Salmonella in dry cereal; 6,500 people
in Illinois became ill from salad contaminated with E. coli; 40 people
became ill and almost half were hospitalized because of an outbreak of
E. coli in cheese; and over 300 people became ill in six states from
bacteria in oysters.
These cases are a small sample. According to the Congressional
General Accounting Office, foodborne illnesses affect up to 80 million
citizens a year and cause 9,000 deaths. Medical costs and lost
productivity are estimated at $30 billion. This is not a problem that
we can ignore.
Michael Osterholm, state epidemiologist for the Minnesota Department
of Health, condemned the lack of action after a recent outbreak in the
state. He said that, ``If we don't do better, and we don't give the FDA
more money, more events like this are going to happen. Right now, we
don't seem to have the resources or the will to keep something like
this from happening again. As long as we don't, we will have other
outbreaks.''
The old wisdom does not apply. You can't just cook your food more
thoroughly to avoid these illnesses. Harmful bacteria are appearing in
virtually all food products--juice, lettuce, even cereal.
Our amendment will provide $73 million in additional funds to support
greater monitoring, education, research, and enforcement to address
this growing problem.
We have the ability to prevent most foodborne illnesses. Improved
monitoring allows earlier detection and an earlier response to
outbreaks. Increased food inspections are needed to keep unsafe food
out of our stores and off our dining room tables.
Expanded research is needed to detect and identify dangerous
organisms likely to contaminate food. The need is especially great with
respect to imports of fresh produce and vegetables.
Our amendment will provide the resources needed to perform these
essential activities. It will mean 150 new inspectors for FDA to focus
on food imports, which have more than doubled since 1992. Yet during
that same period, FDA resources devoted to imported foods dropped by 22
percent. As a result, FDA now inspects less than 2 percent of imported
food. Clearly, we have to do better.
Our amendment would also provide funds to enhance ``early warning''
and monitoring systems needed to detect and respond to outbreaks. These
systems will also provide information to prevent future outbreaks.
Early detection and control are essential to ensure the safety of every
American.
In addition, our amendment will fund research essential to understand
dangerous organisms in food. Many cannot be identified today. Others
have developed resistance to traditional methods of preserving food.
Still others have developed resistance to antibiotics. Clearly,
additional research is needed to protect the food supply.
We have broad support for this amendment. The food industry, consumer
groups and the public all favor increased funding. Food safety affects
every American every day.
Without additional resources, we will continue to see the escalation
of these outbreaks. Congress must act to ensure the safety of the food
supply for all Americans. The American people deserve to know that the
food they eat is safe, no matter where it is grown, processed, or
packaged.
I thank the Senator and urge our colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his
kind words. But more than that, I want to thank him for his efforts
through the years to make sure we had a Food and Drug Administration
that was on the side of consumers in this country, a strong Food and
Drug Administration that made sure that we could have confidence when
we went to the drugstore or to the grocery store to get our food, drugs
and medicine, that they would indeed be safe. I want to thank the
Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership in that area and thank
him for his kind and generous support of this amendment.
Everything he said is right on mark. It is not just the consumers, I
say to my friend from Massachusetts. I earlier had some comments from
people representing the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Broiler Council, the National Food
Processors Association, all of whom basically said we need better
surveillance, we need better risk assessment, we need better education
out there. That is what this amendment does. It is the processors, the
wholesalers--everyone recognizes that this is a new phenomenon, as the
Senator from Massachusetts said, something new we have not experienced
in the past. Everyone recognizes the need to get on top of this.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Biologically, we have E. coli in our bodies, and humankind has always
had E. coli, but it was not the deadly strain we are seeing today.
Twenty years ago we were not even aware of the E. coli O157:H7 strain
that is deadly, and we increasingly see this deadly strain. How many
more outbreaks do we have to have before we act?
This is why I think this amendment is so important, because of the
increased danger that these outbreaks pose for our people. Particularly
vulnerable are the children and the seniors. With the offset that you
have proposed, I cannot understand the reluctance to protect the
consumer, rather than taking our chances.
I find it difficult to understand why we wouldn't have it accepted.
Mr. HARKIN. You are right about E. coli. I counted up in June of this
year, this last month, and we had six E. coli outbreaks of food
poisoning in this country, of a strain of E. coli that didn't exist 20
years ago. It wasn't there. And now it is here. It is not only making
people sick, but killing kids.
There are new pathogens that become more virulent. The surveillance
systems we have in place and the risk assessment and the other
inspection systems we have--the FDA, as the Senator knows, only on
average inspects our food processing plants once every 10 years.
Mr. KENNEDY. It is less than 2 percent of the imported products that
are being inspected; 2 percent. We are seeing a doubling of the
imported foods that are coming into this country and from a greater
number of countries around the world. We are looking at less than 2
percent and the number of imports will be doubling.
Mr. HARKIN. I wonder how many consumers know that only 2 percent of
all the produce they eat that comes from outside this country is ever
inspected--2 percent. The rest of it, who knows what is on that stuff
when it comes to this country. The consumers don't know this. And as
the Senator said, it will go up in the future. We will get more and
more of that produce from other countries. That is why this is really
needed.
I thank the Senator for his support and his comments on this.
Mr. President, there is an editorial that appeared in today's Los
Angeles Times that I was just made aware, calling on us to do something
about food safety. Obviously, they probably didn't know about my
amendment. But they did say.
. . . the U.S. Senate can take a big step to combat food
contamination by restoring all or most of the $101-million
initiative the Clinton administration has proposed to
improve food safety. The money would go to hire new safety
inspectors, upgrade technologies, and bring coherence to
disjointed oversight.
So far, The Senate has allocated only a piddling $2.6
million for the initiative at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and nothing at all at the Food and Drug
Administration.
The editorial went on to say that we needed more funding. I will
quote the last paragraph of the editorial:
Food safety is an unassailable cause. There are some things
that only government can do, and guaranteeing the
wholesomeness of our food supply is one of them.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Los Angeles Times
of this morning, Thursday, July 16, 1998, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Starving Food Safety
Americans now enjoying their summer picnics may suffer a
glimmer of anxiety over recent outbreaks of food-borne
illness: 6,500 people became sick in Illinois last month
after eating commercial potato salad, and E. coli bacterial
contamination occurred in fruit juice and lettuce that
originated in California. Today, the U.S. Senate can take
[[Page S8304]]
a big step to combat food contamination by restoring all or
most of the $101-million initiative the Clinton
administration has proposed to improve food safety. The money
would go to hire new safety inspectors, upgrade technologies
and bring coherence to disjointed oversight.
So far, the Senate has allocated only a piddling $2.6
million for the initiative at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and nothing at all at the Food and Drug
Administration. The shame of this penny-pinching is that it
comes when lawmakers are spending like drunken sailors
elsewhere, for instance in the pork-laden transportation
bill.
The need for better food safety oversight could not be
stronger. The Centers for Disease Control estimated that this
year 9,000 Americans will die and millions will fall
seriously ill because of tainted foods, numbers that have
been growing. CDC officials aren't sure why those statistics
are rising, though they suspect part of the reason may be
improved detection and the increase in imported foods bearing
bacteria and other pathogens to which Americans have little
resistance. Food imports have doubled in the last seven years
and are expected to increase by one-third in the next three
years.
The administration's Food Safety Initiative would get at
this problem first by hiring new inspectors. Less than 2% of
imported food is inspected now because the FDA's budget has
not grown along with imports. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.),
the chairman of the Senate committee that decided not to fund
the initiative at the FDA, suggested that some of the FDA's
duties be delegated to states and local governments, but the
increasing movement of food across state lines and national
borders argues for just the opposite: a coordinated national
strategy.
National planning, for instance, is the only way to
successfully deploy new technologies like DNA fingerprinting,
which within hours allows federal inspectors to trace the
genetic signature of, say, a dangerous bacterium on apples
marketed in the West back to the farm where the fruit was
harvested in Maine. Funding the initiative would enable
federal agencies to continue efforts to install such
technology in sites around the country and train workers to
quickly identify and track food pathogens. And Congress needs
to consider pending bills to give the FDA and the USDA the
power to recall food and to create a single food safety
agency to consolidate scattered oversight.
Food safety in an unassilable cause. There are some things
that only government can do, and guaranteeing the
wholesomeness of our food supply is one of them.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one other thing. I listened to the
comments made by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, when he
very poignantly told the story of the young child who died in Illinois.
I just point out again that these outbreaks are growing with rapidity
and showing up in the oddest of places. For example, last month, dozens
of children got sick--again, with this E. coli 0157H7--in Atlanta after
swimming in a public pool.
Many of these children spent time on dialysis for kidney failure.
This was just last month. Now, the infection they got was the same
strain of E. coli that came from a local ground beef recall in an
outbreak in Atlanta 2 weeks earlier. So 2 weeks earlier, there was an
outbreak of E. coli from a ground beef recall, and now it shows up in a
swimming pool 2 weeks later. Children in five States were infected from
this ultimately foodborne illness. So it started out as a foodborne
illness and then it got into a swimming pool. Dozens of kids got sick
and some spent time on kidney dialysis.
So that is how virulent some of these strains have become. Not only
do they show up in the food, they are so virulent that not even the
chlorine in the swimming pool could kill it.
Again, Mr. President, I think this amendment deserves widespread
support. I point out again that the President asked for $101 million to
fully fund his food initiative. I wish we could do it. We should do it.
But because of the problem with offsets and points of order and getting
60 votes, we had to look around to find legitimate offsets that we
could use. As I said, we found offsets for $66 million. So this brings
the funding up to $66 million. It is not up the full $101 million, but
it brings it to $68 million. Those offsets, of course, were the money
that we got from taking away the Federal Government's subsidizing of
tobacco, $15 million from the CCC computer account, and $13 million
from the ARS buildings and facilities account.
I want to make a couple of things very clear before I close my
comments. I have heard some talk around that there is some new
enforcement authority here. I want to make it clear that there is no
new enforcement authority in my amendment.
Secondly, there are no new user fees for the meat industry--not one
bit of user fees for the meat industry in this amendment.
In the bill now, there is $2.6 million for this Food Safety
Initiative. The House only put in $15 million. The President asked for
$101 million. The amount that this amendment would increase it to would
be $66 million.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, last month, more than 4,000
Illinoisans were sickened by an illness that was ultimately traced to
potato salad contaminated by E. Coli bacteria. A few weeks ago,
thousands of boxes of breakfast cereal were recalled after an outbreak
of salmonella in the cereal infected more than 200 people, including
residents of Illinois. In fact, according to the Center for Science and
the Public Interest, the number of FDA-regulated food products that
have been recalled due to contamination has increased fivefold over the
past ten years.
Health officials say that food poisoning causes more than 30 million
illnesses and thousands of deaths annually. Consequently, the American
people are increasingly concerned about the safety of our food supply.
In 20th century America, this is unacceptable. No American should have
to fear their food.
That is why I support this amendment offered today by Senator Harkin
to restore funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative. This
amendment will provide $93 million to strengthen efforts by the United
States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration
to address food safety issues.
The amendment provides $33 million to recruit more scientists in the
war against food dangers, and for developing new technologies for
combating hazardous pathogens. $28 million is provided to check food
imports at the border, increase seafood safety, and boost fruit and
vegetable inspections. Twelve million is provided for consumer
awareness campaigns so that children, cooks, and those who handle food
at summer festivals can learn safer ways to prepare and handle food.
This is not the first proposal to come before Congress that addresses
food safety. Many of our colleagues have introduced legislation to
respond to this growing problem. Senator Harkin has introduced S. 1264,
which I have cosponsored, that would increase the ability of the USDA
to recall tainted meat and poultry products. My distinguished colleague
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has introduced a bill to consolidate and
coordinate federal food safety improvements that are currently
scattered among a labyrinth of agencies. My colleague from Maryland,
Senator Mikulski, has proposed increasing FDA oversight on foreign
produce.
Regrettably, however, no significant action has occurred on these
bills in this Congress. Meanwhile, the outbreaks of food illnesses are
on the rise nationwide. Mr. President, we can do better. There is a
time to debate, and a time to act, and today, Congress has a real
opportunity to act. Let us pass this amendment and strengthen our
federal food protection system so that the citizens of our country need
not worry each time they reach for a scoop of picnic potato salad, a
home-grilled hamburger, or a morning bowl of cereal. Doing nothing is
not an option, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Chairman Cochran
and his staff for pulling together this appropriations bill under very
difficult circumstances. Not only was there a very low allocation, but
a number of the requests were based on assumed revenue from new fees.
Under these circumstances, Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers did an
admirable job balancing all the agriculture programs.
However, today we are calling attention to an urgent need in our
country: the increasing outbreaks of food poisoning across the country.
Almost a year ago we witnessed one of the largest beef recalls in U.S.
history. Fortunately, what could have been a national health disaster
was caught early and stopped. But the underlying problem remained. To
address this problem the Administration requested $96 million in new
food safety funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food
and Drug Administration to reduce the hazards associated with bacteria,
viruses and parasites in our food
[[Page S8305]]
supply. Although I realize the budget allocation constrains us from
funding this full amount, I join Senator Harkin to offer an amendment
to fund the most urgently needed proposals of the Food Safety
Initiative.
Mr. President, there are many problems that arrive on Congress's
doorstep that we can do little about. This is a problem we can--and
should--address. And we need to address this problem now. A year after
the 25-million pound beef recall we are still seeing headlines about
new outbreaks. Each year more than 30 million Americans suffer a
foodborne illness, and 9,100 die. The cost to the nation is anywhere
from $5.6 billion to more than $22 billion.
This is a national problem, ranging from cheese and egg contamination
in the Pacific Northwest to tomatoes in Minnesota to shellfish and
strawberries in the South. E. coli outbreaks in recent years have also
been traced to contaminated sprouts, lettuce, salami and other
products. Two summers in a row, in 1996 and 1997, thousands of
illnesses were linked to imported raspberries containing a parasite,
Cyclospora, that is not found in this country.
After each one of these scary outbreaks, the American public is left
asking the same questions--questions that the programs to be funded by
this amendment and the President's Food Safety Initiative will help
answer: How do these viruses move so swiftly through our food system,
how can they be prevented, and where might they show up next?
The United States enjoys the safest food supply in the world, but we
can and should do better. Americans know the risk to our food supply is
growing. Recent covers of Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report and
newspapers across the country have asked if we can continue to trust
our food supply. As a nation, we cannot afford an erosion of the
public's trust in the safety of our food.
More than 44 percent of Americans think our food supply is less safe
than 10 years ago. FDA-regulated plants are only inspected on average
once every 10 years. FDA import inspections have declined dramatically
in just the last four years, so that now less than two percent of FDA-
regulated imported food is subject to any type of inspection.
Our amendment will increase inspections of imported food. It will
fund development of improved inspection practices to detect threats to
our food supply earlier and stop massive outbreaks from occurring.
Most of us as adults have had a case of food poisoning. Anyone who
has had food poisoning can imagine how much worse it is for a child.
Think of what it is like when these outbreaks of e-coli, which can be
devastating to adults, but can be critical and even life-threatening to
children.
Every one of us has a stake in this, whether we are involved in
producing or consuming these food products, or whether or not we are
parents who have to worry about what we are feeding our children. Ask
people back home: Is there anything that is going to affect you more
several times a day than the safety of the food you eat? Nothing else
will. This is something we can and must do.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is an interesting part of the
President's budget. When we reviewed it, we noticed, first of all, that
over $400 million in new user fees were proposed by the President to be
assessed on the food and poultry processing plants all around the
country to generate money to pay for the inspections that are performed
in those plants by Federal employees. This was a proposal for a change
in the law and the legislation.
Our committee, of course, doesn't have jurisdiction to change the
law. We simply appropriate the money, consistent with existing law. And
so without the jurisdiction to make those changes, our committee could
not consider that as a part of our bill. The legislative committees in
the House and Senate have not acted on these proposed user fee
impositions, and so there are no funds available to be allocated, as
the President proposed, to pay for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service of the Department of Agriculture.
Nonetheless, our committee approved and suggested in our legislation
to fund increases in the Food Safety and Inspection Service's account.
So our appropriation that is recommended by this committee for Food
Safety and Inspection Service activities amounts to $605,149,000, as
compared with the administration's request for funding the Food Safety
and Inspection Service of $149,566,000. That is more than $350 million
in additional funding that this committee has proposed than what the
President recommended be appropriated for that activity.
Now, when you generate that kind of fund in your proposed budget, you
have an opportunity to spread those proposed dollars around and spend
it elsewhere. That is what the President has done, and that has made up
for his so-called Food Safety Initiative--and more. The Food Safety
Initiative--so-called ``new initiative''--calls for the expenditure of
about $100 million in new funding added to a variety of different
programs in the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug
Administration.
Our committee is not critical and not, in any way, opposing these
increased expenditures in the initiatives that the President has
requested. Our budget allocation didn't give us the luxury, though, of
an additional $350 million. Our allocation doesn't presume any increase
in funding for discretionary programs this year--no increase. We are
all operating under the Balanced Budget Act restrictions, under the
allocation that is provided to subcommittees like the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee. So if we increase something, we have to
take the money from other accounts.
So we did provide not only the full amount needed to continue the
inspections of meat and poultry inspectors throughout the country, with
no new increase--no new user fees, no new taxes on those plants. But we
also provided increases in funding for the Agriculture Research
Service, Food Safety Research Program, and for the Food and Nutrition
Service, Food Safety Grant Program. These are additions over last
year's levels. We were able to find other offsets in the budget to
accommodate those increases.
So I suggest that the committee has been responsive to the need to
continue to upgrade the quality and the aggressiveness of our Food
Safety Research and Inspection Programs. We think, of course, that
there can be more done, it can be a more efficiently operated system.
For that reason, some of us on the Governmental Affairs Committee are
actively participating in the investigation that is chaired by the
distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, who is looking into
the issues presented on the imported foods--fruits and vegetables,
primarily--that have to be inspected under the jurisdiction of the Food
and Drug Administration. She has done a wonderful job leading the staff
of that committee to try to find out what the options are for improving
those activities, making sure that they are doing as good a job as can
possibly be done to accommodate the needs resulting from the huge
increases in imported foodstuffs that are coming into the country.
These are enormous challenges.
I don't think anybody has the magic solution to the problem. I think
on both sides of the aisle we are very interested in solving the
problems that are presented. We have heard some very impressive
speeches made today on that subject. We can continue to make speeches.
But I think we should continue to work together--that is what I suggest
we do--with the administration, with the Congress, to try to do the
best possible job.
I think the American people can be reassured that an enormous amount
of effort and an enormous amount of money is being invested to achieve
that goal. If you add up the total of all of the dollars that are
appropriated, we are spending more money to not only inspect the meat
and poultry that is being processed in this country, but fruits and
vegetables as well. Research and education programs, how to handle
foodstuffs, and at the farm on how to produce the foods so they will be
free from contamination, an enormous amount of effort is being
invested.
So we hope this amendment can be accepted by the Senate, frankly.
Offsets have been identified in a number of areas. We have tried to get
the administration's reaction to these offsets. We haven't heard from
them on
[[Page S8306]]
some of them. We have checked with the Congressional Budget Office to
see if this amendment violates the Budget Act. We have been assured
that it does not.
So because we are going to have to continue to work to resolve our
differences with the House, there may be some adjustments in which the
House insists. But we will work very hard to make sure that when we
come back from conference to the Senate with our conference report that
it will reflect a genuine effort and a sizable investment of
discretionary funds in the food safety area, both for the Department of
Agriculture's activities and the Food and Drug Administration's
activities.
Mr. President, I know of no other Senators who have requested an
opportunity to speak on the amendment. I am prepared to go to a vote
and suggest that we agree to the amendment.
Incidentally, I have been authorized to express the support for that
recommendation from the Senator from Arkansas who is the ranking member
of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Iowa. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas, 65 nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--34
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Breaux
Burns
Coats
Conrad
Craig
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--1
Glenn
The amendment (No. 3175) was agreed to.
Change Of Vote
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 207 I voted
``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that I be recorded as a ``nay.'' This would not
affect the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I want to send to
the desk to be considered. I talked to the ranking member, but I wasn't
able to talk to the floor manager of the bill. I am willing to accept a
short time agreement on this amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator take 10 or 15 minutes?
Mr. DODD. I will be happy to take a very brief time agreement. If you
have some other agenda you want to move ahead, I say to the floor
manager, I will be happy to consider some other program the floor
manager may have.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senator's inquiry. I have no objection
to your offering the amendment. I haven't seen the amendment. I asked
my staff what it was about. They haven't seen it, either. We are trying
to get in touch with the legislative committee. We understand it is a
legislative subject, not appropriations at all. It doesn't ask for
spending any more money or any less money, but it imposes a burden on
an industry, and we are trying to find out what the implications are.
You can offer it.
Amendment No. 3176
(Purpose: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require
the Secretary to ensure timely notification of certain recalls)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an
amendment numbered 3176.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the
following:
SEC. ____. NOTIFICATION OF RECALLS OF DRUGS AND DEVICES.
(a) Drugs.--Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(o)(1) If the Secretary withdraws an application for a
drug under paragraph (1) or (2) of the first sentence of
subsection (e) and a class I recall for the drug results, the
Secretary shall take such action as the Secretary may
determine to be appropriate to ensure timely notification of
the recall to individuals that received the drug, including
using the assistance of health professionals that prescribed
or dispensed the drug to such individuals.
``(2) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `Class I' refers to the corresponding
designation given recalls in subpart A of part 7 of title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor regulation.
``(B) The term `recall' means a recall, as defined in
subpart A of part 7 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,
or a successor regulation, of a drug.''.
(b) Devices.--Section 518(e) of such Act (21 U.S.C.
360h(e)) is amended--
(1) in the last sentence of paragraph (2), by inserting
``or if the recall is a class I recall,'' after ``cannot be
identified''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) In this subsection, the term `Class I' refers to the
corresponding designation given recalls in subpart A of part
7 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor
regulation.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 705(b) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 375(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or gross'' and inserting ``gross''; and
(2) by striking the period and inserting ``, or a class I
recall of a drug or device as described in section 505(o)(1)
or 518(e)(2).''.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward proposal and
is similar to legislation that was offered by my colleague in the other
body, Congressman Shays of Connecticut. This amendment deals with the
issue of defective pharmaceutical products and medical devices that
have been recalled by the manufacturer.
We almost had a very tragic case in Connecticut several months ago
involving recalls, which provoked this piece of legislation. A child in
Connecticut, a young boy by the name of Matthew McGarry, has food
allergies to peanuts and needs a device known as an Epi-Pen to
counteract the severe reactions--seizures or even death--that could
result if he inadvertently eats certain foods. The Epi-Pen that Matthew
relies on was recalled by the manufacturer because it was found to have
substantial leaks in it, rendering it ineffective.
Matthew was fortunate that his school nurse, Betty Patterson, heard
of the recall and immediately notified his parents, Karen and William
McGarry, that they needed to replace the product. Had she not heard of
the recall and had young Matthew had an attack, he very well could have
died. The family is very well aware that a tragedy was averted.
His family and other Connecticut families brought this to the
attention
[[Page S8307]]
of Congressman Shays and myself and suggested this would be an
appropriate area for some thoughtful legislation to require that
consumers be notified when dangerous products are taken off the
market--a requirement not currently found in law.
Consumers have the right to be notified when the cars they drive or
the toys their children play with are unsafe. Shouldn't they have the
same right when it comes to drugs and devices found in every family's
medicine cabinet?
The recall process presently relies almost exclusively on the good-
faith efforts of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. Most of the
time it works very well to protect consumers. However, a recent spate
of recalls involving these Epi-Pen devices--first in October of 1997
and most recently in May of this year--has highlighted the need to
better ensure that consumers, when appropriate, are directly informed
that a drug or device may be dangerous.
An Epi-Pen is a device, as my colleagues, I am sure, are aware, that
injects epinephrine and is used by children with severe food allergies
to counteract life-threatening reactions. Due to a defect in the
manufacturing process, some lots of the device were found to leak the
encapsulated drug, potentially leaving patients with an amount of the
drug insufficient to counter an allergic response.
A class I recall of the product was issued, indicating a reasonable
possibility that the use of the product could cause serious health
effects or death. Despite the severity of the defect, the recall
notification failed to notify consumers whose children relied on these
products, either because the retailers did not pass along the
notification in a timely fashion or because the retailers themselves
received notification days after the recall was first issued.
In an effort to provide the public with better and more timely notice
of the most serious recalls, this amendment will, for the first time,
explicitly require the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that
consumers receive prompt notification of class I recalls.
How the directive will be accomplished will be left up to the FDA. We
don't mandate a specific approach. The FDA could, for example,
encourage distributors and pharmacies to employ more effective and
rapid notification technologies, a shift that some in the industry are
already advocating. We do not micromanage the notification process. We
are just suggesting that better mechanisms be put in place to give
consumers who use these products and rely on them a higher degree of
confidence.
I hope my colleagues can support this straightforward amendment. I
hope that my colleagues will recognize that if we do not take up this
issue now, we run the risk that some other child won't be as lucky as
Matthew and will suffer serious harm. For those reasons, Mr. President,
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that since the Agency already has authority
under the devices statute to require both recalls and notifications,
amending these provisions to refer only to Class 1 recalls could be
interpreted as limiting the Agency's existing authority. Am I correct
that your intent is not to limit the Agency's existing authority,
either with respect to recalls or notification?
Mr. DODD. That is correct. What I intend by the amendment is to make
certain that in the case of every Class 1 recall FDA does provide
notice to the public. I certainly would not want to do anything to
suggest that such authority does not now exist, or that such authority
does not exist for Class 2 and Class 3 recalls, or other actions as
deemed appropriate for public notice by FDA. I just want to make
certain that they use their authority in all Class 1 recalls.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator be willing to set his amendment aside
temporarily to allow the Senator from Virginia to proceed?
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dodd
amendment be temporarily laid aside to allow Senator Robb, who has been
waiting patiently for about 3 days, to offer his amendment--it should
not be long--and that immediately upon the adoption or disposition of
his amendment, we return to the Dodd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator
from Arkansas and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
Amendment No. 3177
(Purpose: To waive the statute of limitations barring certain
discrimination complaints against the Department of Agriculture)
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], for himself, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.
Hollings and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment
numbered 3177.
Mr. ROBB. 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 13, line 14, strike $97,200,000 and insert
$92,200,000, and on page 14, line 17, strike $437,082,000 and
insert $432,082,000.
On page 18, line 1, strike $424,473,000 and insert
$419,473,000.
On page 19, line 23, strike $93,000,000 and insert
$88,000,000, on
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
Sec. . Expenses for computer-related activities of the
Department of Agriculture funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation pursuant to section 161(b)(1)(A) of P.L. 104-127
in fiscal year 1999 shall not exceed $50,000,000; provided,
that Section 4(g) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter
Act is amended by striking $178,000,000 and inserting
$173,000,000.
SEC. . WAIVER OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS.
(a) Definition of Eligible Claim.--In this section, the
term ``eligible claim'' means a non-employment-related claim
that was filed with the Department of Agriculture on or
before July 1, 1997 and alleges discrimination by the
Department of Agriculture at any time during the period
beginning on January 1, 1981, and ending on December 31,
1996,
(1) in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15
U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in administering--
(A) a farm ownership, farm operating, or emergency loan
funded from the Agricultural Credit Insurance Program
Account; or
(B) a housing program established under title V of the
Housing Act of 1949; or
(2) in the administration of a commodity program or a
disaster assistance program.
(b) Waiver.--To the extent permitted by the Constitution,
an eligible claim, if commenced not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, shall not be barred by
any statute of limitations.
(c) Administrative Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--In lieu of bringing a civil action, a
claimant may seek a written determination on the merits of an
eligible claim by the Secretary of Agriculture if such claim
is filed with the Secretary within two years of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Time period for resolution of administrative claims.--
To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall,
within 180 days from the date an eligible claim is filed with
Secretary under this subsection, conduct an investigation,
issue a written determination, and propose a resolution in
accordance with this subsection.
(3) Hearing and award.--The Secretary shall--
(A) provide the claimant an opportunity for a hearing
before making the determination; and
(B) award the claimant such relief as would be afforded
under the applicable statute from which the eligible claim
arose notwithstanding any statute of limitations.
(d) Standard of Review.--Federal courts reviewing an
eligible claim under this section shall apply a de novo
standard of review.
(e) Limitation on Administrative Awards and Settlement
Authority and Extension of Time.--
(1) Limitaton on administrative awards and settlement
authority.--A proposed administrative award or settlement
exceeding $75,000 (other than debt relief) of an eligible
claim--
(A) shall not take effect until 90 days after notice of the
award or settlement is given to the Attorney General; and
(B) shall not take effect if, during that 90-day period,
the Attorney General objects to the award or settlement.
(2) Extension of time.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) and
(c), if an eligible claim is denied administratively, the
claimant shall have at least 180 days to commence a cause of
action in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction seeking
of review of such denial.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, for over a year now I have been working with
many minority farmers to address the problem of discrimination at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that we have finally found
a
[[Page S8308]]
way to provide relief to these farmers. I thank, in particular, the
Senator from Mississippi for his efforts and commitment to work out the
details of this important amendment.
This amendment will provide long overdue relief for many minority
farmers who were the victims of systematic and egregious discrimination
by USDA officials--discrimination which has been acknowledged by
Secretary Glickman and the USDA.
This amendment, which is very similar to language which has already
passed in the House, seeks to remedy this problem by imposing a new
statute of limitations for farmers who experienced discrimination
between 1981 and 1996 and who filed complaints to seek redress.
As I discovered about a year or so ago, many farmers were denied
credit opportunities and were discriminated against when seeking
housing loans, and obtained no relief from USDA when they complained of
such discrimination.
These farmers filed discrimination complaints with the USDA's Office
of Civil Rights in the early 1980's. However, they were never told
that, in 1983, the Office of Civil Rights at USDA was abolished.
Furthermore, they had no notice that their claims were not even being
investigated despite being led to believe otherwise.
These farmers are barred, only by the statute of limitations, from
obtaining relief from this mistreatment. Whether it is a racial slur or
a denial of credit opportunities, discrimination is unconscionable and
it is intolerable, and it is particularly appalling when such
discrimination is exhibited by Government officials--officials employed
by our Government to serve all Americans, as was the case with the
USDA.
Studies, reports, and task forces in 1965, 1970, 1982 and 1990, have
all documented the same inherent problems at USDA--continued
discrimination and mistreatment of minority and socially disadvantaged
customers.
It is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that the relief
for these farmers' claims is approximately $15 million in fiscal year
1999 and $42 million over the next 3 years. That means that the
Congressional Budget Office believes that the Government legitimately
owes $15 million in order to provide relief to farmers who were
discriminated against by our Government officials.
The statute of limitations is now the only obstacle standing in the
way of these farmers getting the relief they deserve. And this
amendment simply removes that obstacle.
Inexplicably, the discrimination that many minority farmers suffered
at the hands of USDA officials still has not been punished or
mitigated. This amendment will mitigate for the farmers who were
discriminated against.
Too many farmers and communities have been affected by this travesty,
Mr. President. I am pleased that the U.S. Senate has chosen not to
remain silent.
In reaching a resolution, I particularly thank Senator Cochran,
Senator Bumpers, Senator Grassley, Senator Lugar, and their staffs, and
my staff for their hard work. I also thank Secretary Glickman and his
staff at USDA and the staff at the Department of Justice for their
commitment and hard work on this amendment.
Finally, I especially acknowledge and thank the White House for its
unwavering support of this amendment and of these farmers. While it has
been a challenge to work on the spending issues, and reach agreement on
the offsets, I believe the result was well worth the effort. What we
have done today, Mr. President, is right, just, and long overdue.
With that, I yield the floor and seek action on the amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in deciding on the offsets for this
amendment, one of the offsets for $5 million in savings is from funds
that would be used by the Department of Agriculture for information
technology. These funds are provided through the Commodity Credit
Corporation. I have a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture
responding to that offset and suggesting that the Department supports
it. I want to be sure that we understand one provision in this letter
and its implications. He says:
The statute of limitations waiver is one of my highest
priorities in this legislation, and this amendment and its
offset have my support. If enacted, USDA will not seek to
restore the computer spending reduction through future
appropriations.
With that understanding, Mr. President, I am able to support the
amendment. It has been my intention to assist the author of the
amendment in his effort to get this passed in the Senate.
What it does is to waive, as a legal defense, the statute of
limitations that had run on claims that were going to be filed, or that
had been filed by certain persons who claim to be the victims of
discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
This amendment does not guarantee that everybody who has a claim on
the basis of discrimination is going to win or is going to prevail if
the Department decides to resist. It gives the Department, though, an
opportunity to negotiate those claims, to make decisions about which
ones are meritorious and which ones are not.
But it does not permit the Department to use as a defense the fact
that the statute of limitations has run. It was a peculiar and unique
statute of limitations when it was first granted under the authority of
previous legislation. It permitted claims to be filed on this basis
within a window of opportunity of about 2 years. Most of them fell
within this 2-year period.
Some farmers did not understand that they had to file a claim in
writing and go through certain steps in order to keep that statute from
running, and so there was a lot of misunderstanding about the fact that
this statute had been imposed and limited to the duration within which
claims could be filed.
Some lawsuits have been filed now contesting the statute. This is an
effort to say to those claimants that we are not going to let you have
your claim fail on the basis of not having complied with that early 2-
year statute of limitations. So that is going to be removed. Your claim
will be decided now on its merits. And that is up to the Department;
and that is up to the claimants.
That is my understanding of the amendment. I congratulate the Senator
for his initiative and his hard work in getting us to this point. We
support the amendment and hope the Senate will approve it.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me again echo the very eloquent words of the
chairman, and for the purposes of the Record state this has been sort
of a festering sore down at the Department of Agriculture for some
time. I know the President is personally--very personally--interested
in the extension of the statute of limitations so nobody who has a
meritorious claim will be denied that claim simply because he did not
understand the intricacies affecting his claim.
By the same token, I think it is well, for the Record, to say--and I
think this is precisely what has been said by the chairman; I will
simply repeat it--we are not making a judgment on the merits of a
single claim. We are simply saying that if you have a claim that has
merit, we are going to give you a chance to present it; and hopefully
it will be decided in a very judicial way and a justifiable way.
So with that little caveat, I congratulate Senator Robb. He has
worked diligently to try to find offsets in order to offer this. He has
done a magnificent job. I thank the Department of Agriculture and the
White House for their cooperation.
With that, on this side of the aisle we are prepared to accept the
amendment, Mr. President.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from
Arkansas for their long-suffering understanding and help on this
amendment.
I add, lest anyone be concerned--or to add to the discussion which
was right on the money--that any claims that exceed $75,000 will
actually be reviewed by the Justice Department. So in addition to the
claims being reviewed by the Department of Agriculture, the Justice
Department would review a claim in excess of that particular amount.
This gives an additional screen for claims that might be
[[Page S8309]]
viewed as excessive in any way, shape or form. But the bottom line is,
as both Senators have suggested, this removes an impediment that
otherwise would bar a meritorious claim. And it does nothing more than
that.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
the letter from Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to me that I
referred to be printed at this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 16, 1998.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and
Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Thad: During the Senate's consideration of the fiscal
year 1999 agricultural appropriations bill, I understand the
Senate may consider an amendment waiving statute of
limitations preventing the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
from properly resolving certain civil rights complaints. I
understand further, to offset the additional spending that
would result from such a provision, the amendment may reduce
spending for Farm Service Agency and other USDA information
technology funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation by
as much as $5 million.
The statute of limitations waiver is one of my highest
priorities in this legislation, and this amendment and its
offset have my support. If enacted, USDA will not seek to
restore the computer spending reduction through future
appropriations.
I appreciate your consideration of my views and your
support for this amendment.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Dan Glickman,
Secretary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3177) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROBB. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3176
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me return to the amendment to mention
several people here who deserve a great deal of credit for bringing
this issue to the attention of Congressman Shays and myself.
Betty Patterson is the nurse at St. Theresa's School in Trumbull, CT.
There are thousands and thousands of school nurses all across America
who probably don't get enough credit for the work and job they do every
day, caring for our children while they are away at school. It was
Betty Patterson who came across the notification that the EPI-PEN had
been recalled, and knew that one of the students in the St. Theresa
school, Matthew, would need to get a safe and effective replacement.
First, I want to congratulate Betty Patterson for the tremendous job
she did.
Second, I'd like to commend Karen McGarry, Mathew's mother, who,
discovering that her pharmacist had not notified his patients,
contacted the Connecticut Post, a major newspaper in my home State of
Connecticut, to look into the matter. And I'd like to commend Michael
Mayko of the Connecticut Post who wrote stories on this incident and
did the checking to discover that there was no Federal law or State law
that required that consumers be notified. So I want to thank him for
doing so much to highlight this important story.
Of course, I want to thank Matthew himself, who is one of 1.47
million people in this country who suffer from severe allergies and
must rely on products like the Epi-Pen, for telling his story.
Mr. President, I'd like to once again restate that this amendment
simply says that the Food and Drug Administration, when working with
manufacturers to plan a class I recall, should take all appropriate
measures to ensure that consumers are directly and promptly notified. I
think most would agree this should be a commonsense requirement.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will feel
confident in supporting this amendment. I don't seek any recorded votes
on it. If the majority and minority can accept it, I am prepared to
conclude the debate and go to other amendments. I don't know what their
pleasure is.
I see my distinguished floor manager rising. I yield to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished floor manager.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's indulgence. We
are trying to get the reaction of the Food and Drug Administration and
the legislative committee that has jurisdiction over this subject. I
don't have an answer from them yet as to whether they want me to move
to table the amendment or try to amend it to make it consistent with
their wishes, or to suggest that we accept it.
The Senator said that a Member of the House, the other body, has
offered this as an amendment over there. Has it been passed in a
freestanding bill, or is it on this bill, does the Senator know?
Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, I am informed the bill has been
introduced by Congressman Shays, whom I know my colleague and friend
from Mississippi knows. I don't believe they have moved the bill over
there.
By the way, we have checked with the FDA and the words they use--we
have included and incorporated the comments of the FDA in the
legislative proposal.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DODD. If my colleagues want to move to another amendment, I am
more than happy to set this aside.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that the Dodd amendment be
temporarily laid aside while we deal with some amendments that are
agreed to, at the conclusion of which, we will automatically return to
the Dodd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator
from Connecticut for his agreement to set aside his amendment while we
proceed to other business so we can near the time we are ready to
conclude action on this bill. We hope that will be soon.
We have nine amendments that I think have been cleared on both sides.
My proposal would be that we consider them en bloc and that they be
approved en bloc, and statements relating to the amendments be printed
in the Record, and that motions to reconsider the votes and to table
the motions to reconsider be considered as passed. That will be my
request. I want to be sure that we do have the list, and I will read
the list for the benefit of my comanager of this bill.
There is a Brownback amendment on the census of agriculture, a Levin
amendment on tree assistance, an amendment for Senators Kerrey and
Roberts on farm policies studies.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield just a moment.
What was the Levin amendment?
Mr. COCHRAN. The Levin amendment is regarding tree assistance--
disaster assistance for tree plants.
Mr. BUMPERS. I have fire blights.
Mr. COCHRAN. It is fire blights.
A Graham amendment for country-of-origin produce labeling, a Bumpers
amendment relating to sense of the Senate on program funding levels, a
Feingold and Jeffords amendment on small farms, a Dorgan amendment
relating to planting penalty limitation, a Craig and Lugar amendment on
biodiesel fuel, and a Bumpers amendment on Rural Housing Service Award.
We had cleared a Hatch amendment on interstate meat distribution, and
we understand a question has been raised by a colleague.
We understand the question has been answered, so we can now add the
tenth amendment to the list, by Senator Hatch, interstate meat
distribution plan, and a colloquy that would go along with that.
Those are 10 amendments that have been cleared on this side. If the
distinguished comanager of the bill agrees, I am prepared to offer a
unanimous consent request that they be considered en bloc and agreed to
en bloc.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President all of those amendments have been cleared
on this side.
Amendments Nos. 3178 through 3187, En Bloc
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those
amendments that I read in the list be considered en bloc, agreed to en
bloc, that motions to table the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
[[Page S8310]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes
amendments No. 3178 through 3187, en bloc.
The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 3178
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to improve the Census
of Agriculture by eliminating redundant questions and removing
penalties)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. 7 . CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE.
(a) In General.--Section 2 of the Census of Agriculture Act
of 1997 (7 U.S.C. 2204g) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by inserting at the end the
following: ``In fiscal year 1999 the Secretary of Agriculture
is directed to continue to revise the Census of Agriculture
to eliminate redundancies in questions asked of farmers by
USDA.'';
(2) in subsection (d) by deleting in paragraph (1) ``who
willfully gives'' and inserting in its place ``shall not
give'', and deleting ``, shall be fined not more than $500'';
(3) in subsection (d) by deleting in paragraph (2) ``who
refuses or willfully neglects'' and inserting in its place
``shall not refuse or willfully neglect'', and deleting ``,
shall not be fined more than $100'';
AMENDMENT NO. 3179
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to use certain
funds to carry out a tree assistance program and to clarify the
eligibility of certain producers for assistance under the program)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. ____. TREE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may use funds
for the assistance made available under Public Law 105-174,
to carry out a tree assistance program to owners of trees
that were lost or destroyed as a result of a disaster or
emergency that was declared by the President or the Secretary
of Agriculture during the period beginning May 1, 1998, and
ending August 1, 1998, regardless of whether the damage
resulted in loss or destruction after August 1, 1998.
(b) Administration.--Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary shall carry out the program, to the maximum extent
practicable, in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the tree assistance program established under part 783 of
title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.
(c) Eligibility.--A person shall be presumed eligible for
assistance under the program if the person demonstrates to
the Secretary that trees owned by the person were lost or
destroyed by May 31, 1999, as a direct result of fire blight
infestation that was caused by a disaster or emergency
described in subsection (a).
AMENDMENT NO. 3180
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to assist the
Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture to conduct a study to
guide the development of future Federal agricultural policies)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. 7____. STUDY OF FUTURE FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL POLICIES.
(a) In General.--On the request of the Commission on 21st
Century Production Agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture,
acting through the Chief Economist of the Department of
Agriculture, shall make assistance and information available
to the Commission to enable the Commission to conduct a study
to guide the development of future Federal agricultural
policies.
(b) Duties.--In conducting the study, the Commission
shall--
(1) examine a range of future Federal agricultural policies
that may succeed the policies established under the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.)
for the 2003 and subsequent crops, and the impact of such
policies on farm income, the structure of agriculture, trade
competitiveness, conservation, the environment and other
factors;
(2) assess the potential impact of any legislation enacted
through the end of the 105th Congress on future Federal
agricultural policies; and
(3) review economic agricultural studies that are relevant
to future Federal agricultural policies.
(c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1999, the
Commission shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, and the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
the results of the study conducted under this section.
AMENDMENT NO. 3181
(Purpose: To require country of origin labeling of perishable
agricultural commodities imported into the United States and to
establish penalties for violations of the labeling requirements)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. ____. INDICATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF IMPORTED
PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Food service establishment.--The term ``food service
establishment'' means a restaurant, cafeteria, lunch room,
food stand, saloon, tavern, bar, lounge, or other similar
facility, operated as an enterprise engaged in the business
of selling foods to the public.
(2) Perishable agricultural commodity; retailer.--The terms
``perishable agricultural commodity'' and ``retailer'' have
the meanings given the terms in section 1(b) of the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C.
499a(b)).
(b) Notice of Country of Origin Required.--Except as
provided in subsection (c), a retailer of a perishable
agricultural commodity imported into the United States shall
inform consumers, at the final point of sale of the
perishable agricultural commodity to consumers, of the
country of origin of the perishable agricultural commodity.
(c) Exemption for Food Service Establishments.--Subsection
(b) shall not apply to a perishable agricultural commodity
imported into the United States to the extent that the
perishable agricultural commodity is--
(1) prepared or served in a food service establishment; and
(2)(A) offered for sale or sold at the food service
establishment in normal retail quantities; or
(B) served to consumers at the food service establishment.
(d) Method of Notification.--
(1) In general.--The information required by subsection (b)
may be provided to consumers by means of a label, stamp,
mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the
imported perishable agricultural commodity or on the package,
display, holding unit, or bin containing the commodity at the
final point of sale to consumers.
(2) Labeled commodities.--If the imported perishable
agricultural commodity is already individually labeled
regarding country of origin by the packer, importer, or
another person, the retailer shall not be required to provide
any additional information to comply with this section.
(e) Violations.--If a retailer fails to indicate the
country of origin of an imported perishable agricultural
commodity as required by subsection (b), the Secretary of
Agriculture may assess a civil penalty on the retailer in an
amount not to exceed--
(1) $1,000 for the first day on which the violation occurs;
and
(2) $250 for each day on which the same violation
continues.
(f) Deposit of Funds.--Amounts collected under subsection
(e) shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States
as miscellaneous receipts.
(g) Application of Section.--This section shall apply with
respect to a perishable agricultural commodity imported into
the United States after the end of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment would require Country of
Origin labeling of perishable agricultural commodities imported into
the United States. I offer this amendment to ensure that Americans know
the origin of every orange, banana, tomato, cucumber, and green pepper
on display in the grocery store, and to improve the safety of food
consumed by all Americans.
In March of 1996, shoppers throughout California and nineteen other
states discovered that the produce they had brought home from the
grocery store was accompanied by an uninvited and unwelcome guest--
cyclospora, a harmful parasite that invades the small intestine and
causes extreme diarrhea, vomiting, weight loss, and severe muscle
aches.
Immediately, the federal government's Center for Disease Control
(CDC) sprang into action. The agency traced the illness to contaminated
Guatemalan raspberries and directed consumers to avoid buying fruit
from the Central American nation until the outbreak could be
investigated, contained, and eradicated.
Americans take this kind of urgent health directive seriously. But
millions of shoppers found that their hands were tied against following
the CDC's instructions. In 49 states, consumers discovered that grocery
stores were not required to post where their fresh fruits and
vegetables had been grown. The information required to prevent other
Americans from getting sick simply wasn't available.
Florida was the exception. For nearly twenty years, Floridians
shopping at their local Publix, Winn Dixie, Food Lion, and other
grocery stores have been able to make educated choices about the food
products they purchase for their families. In 1979, in my first year as
Governor, I proudly signed legislation to make country-of-origin labels
commonplace in produce sections all over Florida.
Country-of-origin labelling is not new to the American marketplace.
For decades, ``Made In'' labels have been as visible as price tags on
clothes, toys, television sets, watches, and many other products. It
makes no sense that they are nowhere to be found in the produce section
of grocery stores in the vast majority of states.
President Clinton has unveiled a number of food safety initiatives
over
[[Page S8311]]
the past several months. Although his plans commendably call for strict
safety measures in the growing and harvesting of domestic fruits and
vegetables, and establish the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
as another line of defense against potentially contaminated imported
produce, they do not empower individual shoppers with the knowledge
they need to make educated choices in the produce section.
As the Guatemalan case illustrated, that is a dangerous omission. The
current lack of identifying information on produce means that Americans
who wish to heed government health warnings about foreign products or
who have justifiable concerns about other nations' labor,
environmental, and agricultural standards are powerless to choose other
perishibles.
Contrary to many claims opposing this legislation, compliance with a
country of origin law would be of minimal cost to our nation's
retailers. Both Publix and Winn Dixie have estimated that compliance
costs most individual grocery stores less than $10 each month. The
total cost for more than 25,000 retail stores in Florida is less than
$195,000 annually.
That's a small price to pay for consumers' peace of mind, and to
preserve the concept of choice that is the foundation for our nation's
free market system. Any first-year economics student knows that the
laws of supply and demand do not work unless consumers have adequate
information about goods and services for sale. Fruits and vegetables
are no exception.
In addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that
twenty-six of our key trading partners, including Guatemala, require
country of origin labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables. By adopting
this amendment, our law will become more consistent with the laws of
our global trading partners, and would not constitute an unfair barrier
to trade.
Giving consumers greater confidence in the produce they buy should be
a central part of our nation's efforts to improve food safety. Congress
can take a major step toward meeting that goal by enacting this
amendment, and restoring American shoppers' ability to make an informed
decision.
amendment no. 3182
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that unauthorized user
fees submitted in the President's budget have resulted in shortfalls
for specified programs)
Findings.--
The President's budget submission includes unauthorized
user fees; It is unlikely these fees will be authorized in
the immediate future; The assumption of revenue from
unauthorized user fees results in a shortfall of funds
available for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Subcommittee;
That among the programs for which additional funds can be
justified are:
Human Nutrition Research;
The Food Safety Initiative activities of the USDA and the
FDA;
the wetlands Reserve Program;
the Conservation Farm Option Program;
the Farmland Protection Program;
the Inspector General's Law Enforcement Initiative;
FDA pre-notification certification;
FDA clinical pharmacology;
FDA Office of Cosmetics and Color;
the Rural Electric loan programs;
the Pesticide Data Program;
the Rural Community Advancement Program;
civil rights activities; and
Fund Rural America.
Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that: In the event
an additional allocation becomes available, the above
mentioned programs should be considered for funding.
AMENDMENT NO. 3183
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and
maintain within the Department of Agriculture an Office of the Small
Farms Advocate)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. --. OFFICE OF THE SMALL FARMS ADVOCATE.
(a) Definition of Small Farm.--In this section, the term
``small farm'' has the meaning given the term in section 506
of the Rural Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 2666).
(b) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish and maintain in the Department of Agriculture an
Office of the Small Farms Advocate.
(c) Functions.--The Office of the Small Farms Advocate
shall--
(1) cooperate with, and monitor, agencies and offices of
the Department to ensure that the Department is meeting the
needs of small farms;
(2) provide input to agencies and offices of the Department
on program and policy decisions to ensure that the interests
of small farms are represented; and
(3) develop and implement a plan to coordinate the
effective delivery of services of the Department to small
farms.
(d) Administrator.--
(1) Appointment.--The Office of the Small Farms Advocate
shall be headed by an Administrator, who shall be appointed
by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a net
increase in the number of political appointees within the
Department of Agriculture.
(2) Duties.--The Administrator shall--
(A) act as an advocate for small farms in connection with
policies and programs of the Department; and
(B) carry out the functions of the Office of the Small
Farms Advocate under subsection (b).
(3) Executive schedule.--Section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Administrator, Office of the Small Farms Advocate,
Department of Agriculture.''.
(e) Resources.--Using funds that are otherwise available to
the Department of Agriculture, the Secretary shall provide
the Office of the Small Farms Advocate with such human and
capital resources as are sufficient for the Office to carry
out its functions in a timely and efficient manner.
(f) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall annually submit to
the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate an annual report that describes actions taken by
the Office of the Small Farms Advocate to further the
interests of small farms.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment
aimed at preserving America's small farms. This amendment costs nothing
and was inspired by a recommendation included in the January, 1998
publication of the National Commission on Small Farms.
Mr. President, there is no question that America's small farms are
struggling. Their struggle is detailed in ``A Time to Act'', the report
issued by the National Commission on Small Farms, which outlines the
crisis small farmers will face as they enter the next century.
Mr. President, 94% of the farms in America are small farms, yet they
receive only 41% of all farm receipts. Simply put 6% of our farms
collect 59% of the receipts. Also, data shows that, on average, these
farms actually earn a negative return on equity. Mr. President, many
feel that one cause of the problem is that USDA does not emphasize the
needs of small farms in its strategic plans, partly because Congress
does not require that emphasis. References to small farms appear seldom
in USDA policy and Congress is to blame. Lets use this opportunity to
right a wrong and attempt to preserve small farms throughout the
country.
Mr. President, the Feingold amendment will turn the USDA's attention
to the plight of the small farmer. This amendment directs the Secretary
of Agriculture to establish an Office of the Small Farms Advocate
within six months of enactment of the underlying bill. This office will
be headed by an Administrator who will be appointed by the President
and who will report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. This
office will be created without going outside current budget or
personnel resources. The Office of the Small Farms Advocate will ensure
that USDA and its programs work to meet the needs of today's small
farmers.
The Office of the Small Farms Advocate will accomplish this by:
working with all USDA agencies to ensure that they consider the needs
of small farmers; providing formal input on major programmatic and
policy decisions by USDA agencies; developing a plan to enhance small
farm program delivery at USDA; and being a constant advocate for small
farms and small farm policies.
Let me assure my colleagues that it is not my intention to create
another layer of bureaucracy--it is my intention to coordinate USDA
programs to meet small farmer needs and make the bureaucracy more
responsive.
Mr. President, this amendment will not increase USDA's authorized
budget, but instead directs USDA to use its current financial and
personnel resources. Finally, this amendment does not increase the
number of political appointees within the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. President, day after day, season after season, we are losing
small farms at an alarming rate. In the United States, we have 300,000
less farms than
[[Page S8312]]
we did in 1979. In 1980, there were 45,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin. In
1997, there are only 24,000 dairy farms. That is a loss of more than 3
dairy farms a day--every day for 18 years. And it does not begin to
measure the human cost to families driven from the land. As small farms
disappear, we are witnessing the emergence of larger agricultural
operations. This trend toward fewer but larger dairy operations is
mirrored in most states throughout the Nation.
For many of the rural communities of Wisconsin, small family-owned
farms are the key component of the community. They provide economic and
social stability. The reduction in the number of small farms has hurt
their neighbors as well and deprived the merchants on Main Street of
many lifelong customers. We need a system in which small farms can be
viable and the work of the producer can be fairly rewarded.
Mr. President, many feel federal policy and federal investments focus
almost solely on the needs of larger scale agricultural producers--
neglecting the specific research needs of small producers. Small
producers need more Federal research and extension activity devoted to
the development of these alternatives. It is my hope that this new
office at USDA will be committed to help develop and promote production
and marketing systems that specifically address the needs of small
farms. This bias has hamstrung small farmers, depriving them of the
tools they need to adapt to changes in farming and the marketplace and
accelerating the trend toward increased concentration.
Mr. President, this country's small producers should not be forced to
become larger in order to remain competitive. Bigger is not necessarily
better. Maintaining the economic viability of small operations has
benefits beyond those gained by farmers and the communities in which
they reside; they can also provide environmental benefits. For example,
as operations expand, manure storage and management practices become
more costly and more burdensome for the operator and raise additional
regulatory concerns associated with runoff and water quality among
State and Federal regulators. Federal policy that helps small operators
to remain competitive and profitable without dramatic expansion will
help minimize these concerns. And in fact, M. President, expansion is
often counterproductive for small operations, requiring them to take on
even greater debt. Unfortunately, federal agriculture policy has put
many producers in a situation where they must choose to expand their
operations or throw in the towel. Farmers should not be forced into
that position. We must provide the tools necessary for farmers to
survive and prosper regardless of the size of their operation.
We all congratulated the USDA when it convened the National
Commission on Small Farms in July 1997. We applauded the appointment of
farmers, ranchers, staff of nonprofit farm and farmworker advocacy
organizations, Extension professionals, current and former public
officials, and philanthropic foundation program staff. We all held up
the final report as our signal to rural America that we were going to
do something. M. President, we haven't done anything yet. The
Commission important report and recommendation have fallen by the
wayside. It would be a travesty if the U.S. Government spent taxpayer
money on a worthwhile project such as this--then didn't act on those
recommendations. This amendment is the first step in our commitment to
not preserve a large sector of our agriculture community, and an
important piece of America's heritage.
I urge my colleagues to support this no-cost, pro-farmer amendment
and yield back the balance of my time.
amendment no. 3184
(Purpose: To limit the penalty for an inadvertent violation of a
contract under the Agricultural Market Transition Act)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. 7--. LIMIT ON PENALTY FOR INADVERTENT VIOLATION OF
CONTRACT UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET
TRANSITION ACT.
If an owner or producer, in good faith, inadvertently
plants edible beans during the 1998 crop year on acreage
covered by a contract under the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) the Secretary of
Agriculture shall minimize penalties imposed for the planting
to prevent economic injury to the owner or producer.
amendment no. 3185
(Purpose: To amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to take into account
newly developed renewable energy-based fuels and to equalize
alternative fuel vehicle acquisition incentives to increase the
flexibility of controlled fleet owners and operators, and for other
purposes)
On page 67 after line 23 add the following new section:
SEC. .
(1) SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Biodiesel
Energy Development Act of 1998''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Amendment to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Sec. 4. Minimum Federal fleet requirement.
Sec. 5. State and local incentives programs.
Sec. 6. Alternative fuel bus program.
Sec. 7. Alternative fuel use in nonroad vehicles, engines, and marine
vessels.
Sec. 8. Mandate for alternative fuel providers.
Sec. 9. Replacement fuel supply and demand program.
Sec. 10. Modification of goals; additional rulemaking authority.
Sec. 11. Fleet requirement program.
Sec. 12. Credits.
Sec. 13. Secretary's recommendation to Congress.
(2) DEFINITIONS.
Section 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13211) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``derived from biological
materials'' and inserting ``derived from domestically
produced renewable biological materials (including biodiesel)
at mixtures not less than 20 percent by volume'';
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) a motor vehicle (other then an automobile) or marine
vessel that is capable of operating on alternative fuel,
gasoline, or diesel fuel, or an approved blend of
alternative fuel and petroleum-based fuel.'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (14) as
paragraphs (12), (14), (15), and (16), respectively;
(4) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
``(11) the term `heavy duty motor vehicle' means a motor
vehicle or marine vessel that is greater than 8,500 pounds
gross vehicle weight rating;'';
(5) by inserting after paragraph (12) (as redesignated by
paragraph (3)) the following:
``(13) the term `marine vessel' means a motorized
watercraft or other artificial contrivance used as a means of
transportation primarily on the navigable waters of the
United States;'';
(6) in paragraph (15) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)),
by striking ``biological materials'' and inserting
``domestically produced renewable biological materials
(including biodiesel)''.
(3) AMENDMENTS TO THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT.
Section 400AA of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6374) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of subsection (a)(3)(B), by
striking ``vehicles converted to use alternative fuels may be
acquired if, after conversion,'' and inserting ``existing
fleet vehicles may be converted to use alternative fuels at
the time of a major vehicle overhaul or rebuild, or vehicles
that have been converted to use alternative fuels may be
acquired, if''; and
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``derived from biological
materials'' and inserting ``derived from domestically
produced renewable biological materials (including biodiesel)
at mixtures not less than 20 percent by volume'';
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) a motor vehicle (other than an automobile) or marine
vessel that is capable of operating on alternative fuel,
gasoline, or diesel fuel, or an approved blend of alternative
fuel and petroleum-based fuel; and''; and
(C) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or marine vessel''
after ``a vehicle''.
(4) MINIMUM FEDERAL FLEET REQUIREMENT.
Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13212) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Heavy Duty and Duel-Fueled Vehicle Compliance
Credits.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of meeting the requirements
of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services, if appropriate, shall
permit a Federal fleet to acquire 1 heavy duty alternative
fueled vehicle in place of 2 light duty alternative fueled
vehicles.
``(2) Additional credits.--For purposes of this section,
the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of
General Services, if appropriate, shall permit a Federal
fleet to take an additional credit for the purchase and
documented use of alternative fuel used in a dual-fueled
vehicle, comparable conventionally-fueled motor vehicle,
or marine vessel.
[[Page S8313]]
``(3) Accounting.--
``(A) In general.--In allowing a credit for the purchase of
a dual-fueled vehicle or alternative fuel, the Secretary may
request a Federal agency to provide an accounting of the
purchase.
``(B) Guidelines.--The Secretary shall include any request
made under subparagraph (A) in the guidelines required under
section 308.
``(4) Fuel and vehicle neutrality.--The Secretary shall
carry out this subsection in a manner that is, to the maximum
extent practicable, neutral with respect to the type of fuel
and vehicle used.''.
(5) STATE AND LOCAL INCENTIVES PROGRAMS.
(a) Establishment of program.--Section 409(a) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13235(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``alternative fueled
vehicles'' and inserting ``light and heavy duty alternative
fueled vehicles and increasing the use of alternative
fuels''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``introduction
of'' the following: ``converted or acquired light and heavy
duty'';
(B) in subparagraph (E), by inserting after ``of sales of''
the following: ``, incentives toward use of, and reporting
requirements relating to''; and
(C) in subparagraph (G)--
(i) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as clauses
(ii) through (iv), respectively; and
(ii) by inserting after ``cost of--'' the following:
``(I) alternative fuels;''.
(b) Federal Assistance to States.--Section 409(b) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13235(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) grants of Federal financial assistance for the
incremental purchase cost of alternative fuels.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting after ``be
introduced'' the following: ``and the volume of alternative
fuel likely to be consumed''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``alternative fuels and'' after ``in
procuring''; and
(B) by inserting ``fuels and'' after ``of such''.
(C) General provisions.--Section 409(c)(2)(A) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13235(c)(2)(A)) is amended by
inserting after ``alternative fueled vehicles in use'' the
following: ``and volume of alternative fuel consumed''.
(6) ALTERNATIVE FUEL BUS PROGRAM.
Section 410(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13236(c)) is amended in the second sentence by striking ``and
the conversion of school buses to dedicated vehicles'' and
inserting ``the incremental cost of alternative fuels used in
flexible fueled school buses, and the conversion of school
buses to alternative fueled vehicles''.
(7) ALTERNATIVE FUEL USE IN NONROAD VEHICLES, ENGINES, AND
MARINE VESSELS.
Section 412 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13238) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``and engines'' and
inserting ``, engines, and marine vessels'';
(2) by striking ``vehicles and engines'' each place it
appears in subsections (a) and (b) and inserting ``vehicles,
engines, and marine vessels'';
(3) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``NONROAD
VEHICLES AND ENGINES'' and inserting ``IN GENERAL'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``a study'' and
inserting ``studies''; and
(ii) in the second sentence--
(I) by striking ``study'' and inserting ``studies''; and
(II) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``2, 6, and 10
years'';
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``study'' each place it appears and
inserting ``studies''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ``or marine
vessels'' after ``such vehicles''; and
(D) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``report'' and inserting ``reports''; and
(ii) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
(4) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``AND ENGINES''
and inserting ``, ENGINES, AND MARINE VESSELS''; and
(B) by striking ``rail transportation, vehicles used at
airports, vehicles or engines used for marine purposes, and
other vehicles or engines'' and inserting ``rail and waterway
transportation, vehicles used at airports and seaports,
vehicles or engines used for marine purposes, marine vessels,
and other vehicles, engines, or marine vessels''.
(8) MANDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROVIDERS.
Section 501 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13251) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or heavy'' after
``new light''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) allow the conversion of an existing fleet vehicle
into a dual-fueled alternative fueled vehicle at the time of
a major overhaul or rebuild of the vehicle, if the original
equipment manufacturer's warranty continues to apply to the
vehicle, pursuant to an agreement between the original
equipment manufacturer and the person performing the
conversion.''.
(9) REPLACEMENT FUEL SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROGRAM.
Section 502 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13252) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting
``and heavy'' after ``in light''; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting
after ``October 1, 1993,'' the following: ``and every 5 years
thereafter through October 1, 2008,''.
(10) MODIFICATION OF GOALS; ADDITIONAL RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
Section 504 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13254) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``and periodically thereafter'' and inserting ``consistent
with the reporting requirements of section 502(b)''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting after the first
sentence the following: ``Any additional regulation issued by
the Secretary shall be, to the maximum extent practicable,
neutral with respect to the type of fuel and vehicle used.''.
(11) FLEET REQUIREMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Fleet Program Purchase Goals.--Section 507(a)(1) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13257(a)(1)) is amended
by inserting ``acquired as, or converted into,'' after
``shall be''.
(b) Fleet Requirement Program.--Section 507(g) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13257(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``acquired as, or
converted into,'' after ``shall be'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Substitutions.--The Secretary shall, by rule, permit
fleets covered under this section to substitute the
acquisition or conversion of 1 heavy duty alternative fueled
vehicle for 2 light duty vehicle acquisitions to meet the
requirements of this subsection.''.
(c) Conversions.--Section 507(j) of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13257(j)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Nothing in'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), nothing in'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Conversion into alternative fueled vehicles.--
``(A) In general.--A fleet owner shall be permitted to
convert an existing fleet vehicle into an alternative fueled
vehicle, and purchase the alternative fuel for the converted
vehicle, for the purpose of compliance with this title or an
amendment made by this title, if the original equipment
manufacturer's warranty continues to apply to the vehicle,
pursuant to an agreement between the original equipment
manufacturer and the person performing the conversion.
``(B) Credits.--A fleet owner shall be allowed a credit for
the conversion of an existing fleet vehicle and the purchase
of alternative fuel for the vehicle.''.
(d) Mandatory State Fleet Programs.--Section 507(o) of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13257(o)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or heavy'' after ``new light''; and
(B) by inserting ``or converted'' after ``acquired''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``the Biodiesel
Energy Development Act of 1997''; and
(B) by inserting after ``of light'' the following: ``or
heavy duty alternative fueled''.
(12) CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Section 508(a) of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13258(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Additional alternative fueled vehicles.--The
Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Alternative fuel.--The Secretary shall allocate a
credit to a fleet or covered person that acquires a volume of
alternative fuel equal to the estimated need for 1 year for
any dual-fueled vehicle acquired or converted by the fleet or
covered person as required under this title.''.
(b) Allocation.--Section 508(b) of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13258(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``In allocating credits under subsection
(a),'' and inserting the following:
``(1) Additional alternative fueled vehicles.--In
allocating credits under subsection (a)(1),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Dual-fueled vehicles; alternative fuel.--In
allocating credits under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary
shall allocate 2 credits to a fleet or covered person for
acquiring or converting a dual-fueled vehicle and acquiring a
volume of alternative fuel equal to the estimated need for 1
year for any dual-fueled vehicle if the dual-fueled vehicle
acquired is in excess of the number that the fleet or covered
person is required to acquire or is acquired before the date
that the fleet or covered person is required to acquire the
number under this title.''.
[[Page S8314]]
(13) SECRETARY'S RECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS.
Section 509(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13259(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the semicolon at
the end the following: ``and exempting replacement fuels from
taxes levied on non-replacement fuels''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``and converters'' after ``suppliers'';
and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``,
including the conversion and warranty of motor vehicles into
alternative fueled vehicles''.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, renewable alternative fuels benefit
energy security, the environment, and our overall economy. The
amendment being offered today by Senator Craig and myself is critically
important to soybean farmers across the country, and will do a great
deal to give the ag economy a shot in the arm in states which produce
soybeans.
Since the Farm Bill took affect two years ago, soybean prices have
dropped 15 percent, costing soybean producers in South Dakota about a
hundred million dollars in lost revenue. The Craig/Johnson amendment
could help offset these losses by boosting soybean prices an average of
11 cents a bushel and generating about $10 million in additional
revenue for South Dakota soybean farmers and more than $300 million for
soybean farmers nationwide without costing taxpayers one dime.
This amendment makes changes to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As
most know, EPACT was enacted to stimulate the research and development
of technologies which can potentially shift the focus of national
energy demand away from imported oil and toward renewable or
domestically produced energy sources. One component of energy
consumption on which EPACT focuses is significantly reducing the amount
of imported oil used by the transportation sector. The stated goal in
EPACT is to replace 10 percent of petroleum by the year 2000 and 30
percent by the year 2010 with alternative fuels.
This amendment is necessary because unfortunately, EPACT's current
mandates and incentive structure essentially exclude some alternative
fuels, such as biodiesel, from being an option for controlled fleet
owners and operators. Further, the amendment will aid in the
achievement of EPACT's goals of strengthening America's energy security
through the substitution of domestically produced alternative fuels for
imported petroleum products in the transportation sector. The latter
point is important because this country is making extremely poor
progress toward meeting the petroleum displacement goals of EPACT, and
even federal fleets are not in compliance with the requirements of this
statute.
However, it is my understanding that Senators Bumpers and Rockefeller
have some concerns about the impact the amendment will have on other
alternative fuels currently eligible under EPACT. Is that correct?
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, Senator Johnson, I do have some concerns about the
amendment. However, I am prepared to accept the amendment today if I
can secure a commitment from the Senator from South Dakota to sit down
and address my concerns between passage of the Senate's legislation
today and completion of action by the conference committee. Can I have
that commitment from you, Senator Johnson?
Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly, and I very much appreciate your willingness
to work with me on this issue. Senator Rockefeller, would you be
willing to accept the amendment today knowing that we will be sitting
down between now and the completion of the conference committee to work
out a compromise to address your concerns?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. While you are correct that I have concerns about
specific provisions in the amendment, I also have concerns about the
process by which we have taken up this issue. One of my top legislative
priorities since coming to Congress has been the promotion of
alternative fuels, and I am concerned that today's action is only a
band-aid on a program which needs major surgery. However, I am prepared
to accept the amendment today with the commitment to work together in
the coming weeks to find a compromise to address my concerns.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. I look forward to
working with you on this specific issue in the coming weeks, and on the
larger issue of more effectively promoting the use of all alternative
fuels in the coming months and in future congresses. I also want to
thank Senator Craig and Chairman Cochran for their leadership on this
amendment, and look forward to working with them during the coming
weeks to find a compromise on this important issue prior to completion
of action by the conference committee.
amendment no. 3186
[The text of the amendment will appear in a future issue of the
Record.]
amendment No. 3187
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a plan to
Congress for the lifting of the ban on interstate distribution of state
inspected meat)
The Secretary of Agriculture shall present to Congress a
report on whether to recommend by March 1, 1999, lifting the
ban on the interstate-distribution of state inspected meat.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Roberts be added as a cosponsor to the biodiesel amendment, amendment
No. 3185.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I and my colleague from Vermont Senator
Jeffords, would like to engage Senator Cochran, Senator Bumpers,
Senator Graham, and Senator Mack in a colloquy regarding Senator
Graham's disaster assistance amendment. I can certainly sympathize with
what Senator Graham and Senator Mack are trying to do tonight with this
amendment, and I support their amendment. The fires that have struck
Florida in recent weeks have shocked people from across the country,
and undoubtedly the damage to agriculture in the state has been severe.
However, I would like to bring attention to the fact that a number of
other states have also suffered significant damage from natural
disasters in recent months. My own state of Vermont suffered
significant flooding early this month. Eight of the state's fourteen
counties were declared disaster areas. Other parts of the country are
also suffering agricultural damage including areas of the west and
southeast which are suffering serious drought conditions. Damage from
these disasters is still being determined, however by the time we go to
conference with the House on the Agriculture Appropriations bill, we
will have a better idea about the extent of those damages. I hope that
at that point we can revisit this disaster assistance and adjust the
funding levels to reflect the full extent of agricultural damage from
natural disasters being suffered by farmers throughout the country.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to join Senator Leahy in expressing my
hope that we can revisit the issue of disaster assistance funding in
conference. Senator Leahy and I toured the damage in Vermont following
the flooding there earlier this month, and the damage for farmers in
affected areas was indeed severe. Those farmers are going to need
assistance and I hope that we will be able to provide it in this bill.
Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with the Senators from Vermont that there are
areas of the country suffering agricultural damage as a result of
natural disasters and the needs of these areas should be addressed. The
Administration should review the damage estimates from affected areas
and request any emergency funding required to address those additional
needs.
Mr. BUMPERS. I am in full agreement with Senator Cochran. While the
need of farmers in Florida is clear and pressing, other farmers are
also suffering as a result of the many disasters which have struck the
country this year. The final conference agreement on this provision
should reflect the full extent of damage to farmers in all affected
regions of the country.
Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the support of Senator Cochran and Senator
Bumpers for our amendment and agree that it would be appropriate to
address any additional needs of farmers from other disaster-stricken
regions in conference.
Mr. MACK. I would like to join my colleagues in agreement that
appropriate action to meet the needs of farmers in disaster-stricken
areas throughout the nation should be taken in conference.
wildlife services division of APHIS aerial safety study
Mr. BURNS. Senator Cochran, I would like to discuss recent problems
[[Page S8315]]
that have been facing the Wildlife Services aerial program.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that the Wildlife Services
Division of APHIS has recently completed a full, independent review of
their aerial program.
Mr. BURNS. That's absolutely correct. As you know, Wildlife Services
provides a broad range of services across the country and the aerial
operations program is a key component of these services. In fact,
distribution of rabies vaccine baits by Wildlife Services occurred
earlier this year in Texas, Ohio, New Hampshire and other states. These
activities help protect pets, children and others from the spread of
rabies.
Mr. COCHRAN. I understand that the aerial program plays a large role
in wolf recovery efforts in the Rocky Mountain West.
Mr. BURNS. That's right. The aerial program helps researchers track
radio-collared wolves so we learn about wolf movements, habitat needs
and feeding patterns. Without the aerial program it would be much more
difficult to tranquilize and relocate wolves preying on domestic
livestock. And, in the event of a wolf persists on killing livestock,
it enables the program to efficiently remove the specific problem
animal.
Mr. COCHRAN. But there have been problems?
Mr. BURNS. Yes. Despite a historically solid safety record, a series
of aircraft accidents in the past two years including four fatalities
of pilots, have prompted Assistant Secretary Mike Dunn to call for a
full outside review.
Mr. COCHRAN. What were the conclusions of this review?
Mr. BURNS. The review found that not enough resources are being
devoted to maintaining the safety of the program. Because of increasing
demand for their aerial services, the program directs most of their
resources into program delivery. This, coupled with ongoing budget
constraints have limited the ability of the program to keep pace with
developing technology and training in aircraft operations.
It is my understanding that the House has provided funds to address
this situation. I hope the Senate conferees on this bill will review
the findings of this study in the conference to assess whether
additional funding is justified.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate your bringing this study to our attention
and we will look into this situation prior to conference.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield for purposes of a
colloquy?
Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to enter into a colloquy with the Senator
from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. The Senator and I have been working together on the Meat
Labeling Act of 1998 for some time. Might I ask, what is the Senator's
understanding of the Act's impact on meat prepared and served by a
restaurant?
Mr. JOHNSON. It is my understanding, as the sponsor of the
legislation, that it would have no impact what-so-ever on meat prepared
and served by a restaurant. It is not our intent to require labeling of
meat prepared and served by a restaurant.
Mr. CRAIG. That is also my understanding and intent. I thank the
Senator for his clarification.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment to the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill, number 3150. This amendment would
provide increased funding for research activities to improve counter-
narcotic efforts.
I realize that the Subcommittee faced a very difficult challenge with
the level of the funding allocation this year. While I am disappointed
that it has been impossible to fund this project at this time, I wish
to call the attention of the members of the Subcommittee to this
important proposal. I believe it makes sense for the future of the
agriculture industry.
This project would increase efforts to use biotechnology in the
control of narcotic plants. This research would also enhance
traditional agriculture production practices, supplying an important
tool in weed control. Biotechnology research promises an economical
solution to the spread of noxious weeds and other pests that threaten
both public and private land across the nation.
I believe this type of research holds great potential for success in
the war on drugs. Related efforts are underway in private industry, but
there is great need to increase our efforts. This project would be an
important step in that direction.
Finally, I would like to thank the Subcommittee Leadership, Senator
Bumpers and Chairman Cochran for their efforts to find funding for this
program. And I hope it will be possible for the Subcommittee to give
this project strong consideration in the future.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank Senator Baucus for agreeing to look at funding
this project in the future. I look forward to working with him on that
effort.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you Senator Bumpers, and thanks to the Chairman, as
well for his assistance.
Mr. HARKIN. Would the distinguished Senator from Mississippi yield
for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with me on an issue of some
concern to food packagers and to the general public?
Mr. COCHRAN. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Iowa for the
purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. HARKIN. As my colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the
Subcommittee may know, I have been advised that the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) authorized a new
streamlined pre-market notification system for food packaging
materials. The current regulatory process involves significant delays,
resulting in lost sales and decisions not to bring new products to
market that would improve food safety and protect the public health.
The new notification system will substantially reduce the length of
the FDA review process and allow the introduction of advanced packaging
materials. The Agency will still, however, receive all of the
information needed to establish the safety of packaging materials and
will continue to be able to keep unsafe materials off the market.
I also have been advised that FDAMA requires that certain funding
criteria be met for the program to take effect as scheduled on April 1,
1999.
The Act calls for funding of the pre-market notification program at a
level of $1.5 million in FY 1999. I note that the counterpart
legislation passed by the House Appropriations Committee currently
provides for the sum of $500,000. It is my hope that the distinguished
Chairman of the Subcommittee will further address this issue in
conference in order for the FDA to implement this important reform as
intended by Congress.
Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with my colleague that the implementation of
this program would expedite the introduction of improved food packaging
materials and will give every consideration to this issue in the
Conference Committee.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we can announce that additional
amendments have now been cleared on both sides of the aisle. There are
4 amendments. Three of them are Coverdell-Cleland amendments, the
Senators from Georgia. One involves a prohibition on loan guarantees.
Another involves a definition of ``farmland.'' A third involves
disaster loan collateral requirements. A fourth Amendment is for
Senator Harkin, and it involves the WIC amendment, and it includes a
colloquy.
If my distinguished friend from Arkansas can verify that these have
been cleared on his side of the aisle, we are prepared to proceed to
ask that they be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
Mr. BUMPERS. May I ask the floor manager, what was the last
amendment?
Mr. COCHRAN. The Harkin amendment on the WIC program, together with a
colloquy.
Mr. BUMPERS. That has been cleared on this side.
Amendments No. 3188 through 3191, En Bloc
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk, en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes
amendments numbered 3188 through 3191, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3188 through 3191), en bloc, are as follows:
[[Page S8316]]
AMENDMENT NO. 3188
(Purpose: To modify the prohibition on loan guarantees to borrowers
that have received debt forgiveness)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. ____. PROHIBITION ON LOAN GUARANTEES TO BORROWERS THAT
HAVE RECEIVED DEBT FORGIVENESS.
Section 373 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act (7 U.S.C. 2008h) is amended by striking subsection (b)
and inserting the following:
``(b) Prohibition of Loans for Borrowers That Have Received
Debt Forgiveness.--
``(1) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
``(A) the Secretary may not make a loan under this title to
a borrower that has received debt forgiveness on a loan made
or guaranteed under this title; and
``(B) the Secretary may not guarantee a loan under this
title to a borrower that has received--
``(i) debt forgiveness after April 4, 1996, on a loan made
or guaranteed under this title; or
``(ii) received debt forgiveness on no more than 3
occasions on or before April 4, 1996.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may make a direct or
guaranteed farm operating loan for paying annual farm or
ranch operating expenses of a borrower that was restructured
with a write-down under section 353.
``(B) Emergency loans.--The Secretary may make an emergency
loan under section 321 to a borrower that--
``(i) on or before April 4, 1996, received not more than 1
debt forgiveness on a loan made or guaranteed under this
title; and
``(ii) after April 4, 1996, has not received debt
forgiveness on a loan made or guaranteed under this title.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 3189
(Purpose: To modify the factors that are used to determine whether
applicants are eligible for farm credit loans)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. ____. DEFINITION OF FAMILY FARM.
(a) Real Estate Loans.--Section 302 of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1922) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Determination of Qualification for Loan.--
``(1) Primary factor.--The primary factor to be considered
in determining whether an applicant for a loan under this
subtitle is engaged primarily and directly in farming or
ranching shall be whether the applicant is participating in
routine, ongoing farm activities and in overall
decisionmaking with regard to the farm or ranch.
``(2) No basis for denial of loan.--The Secretary may not
deny a loan under this subtitle solely because 2 or more
individuals are employed full-time in the farming operation
for which the loan is sought.''.
(b) Operating Loans.--Section 311 of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1941) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Determination of Qualification for Loan.--
``(1) Primary factor.--The primary factor to be considered
in determining whether an applicant for a loan under this
subtitle is engaged primarily and directly in farming or
ranching shall be whether the applicant is participating in
routine, ongoing farm activities and in overall
decisionmaking with regard to the farm or ranch.
``(2) No basis for denial of loan.--The Secretary may not
deny a loan under this subtitle solely because 2 or more
individuals are employed full-time in the farming operation
for which the loan is sought.''.
(c) Emergency Loans.--Section 321 of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Determination of Qualification for Loan.--
``(1) Primary factor.--The primary factor to be considered
in determining whether an applicant for a loan under this
subtitle is engaged primarily and directly in farming or
ranching shall be whether the applicant is participating in
routine, ongoing farm activities and in overall
decisionmaking with regard to the farm or ranch.
``(2) No basis for denial of loan.--The Secretary may not
deny a loan under this subtitle solely because 2 or more
individuals are employed full-time in the farming operation
for which the loan is sought.''.
(d) Effective Date.--This amendment shall be considered to
have been in effect as of January 1, 1977.
AMENDMENT NO. 3190
(Purpose: To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from denying an
emergency loan to a borrower by reason of the fact that the borrower
lacks a particular amount of collateral for the loan if it is
reasonably certain that the borrower will be able to repay the loan)
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. ____. APPLICABILITY OF DISASTER LOAN COLLATERAL
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT.
Section 324(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1964(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d) All loans'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Repayment.--
``(1) In general.-- All loans''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) No basis for denial of loan.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall not deny a loan under this subtitle to a
borrower by reason of the fact that the borrower lacks a
particular amount of collateral for the loan if the Secretary
is reasonably certain that the borrower will be able to repay
the loan.
``(B) Refusal to pledge available collateral.--The
Secretary may deny or cancel a loan under this subtitle if a
borrower refuses to pledge available collateral on request by
the Secretary.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 3191
(Purpose: To include the bonus value of commodities in meeting a
minimum commodity assistance requirement and to increase the amount
appropriated for the WIC program)
On page 46, line 24, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds under
this heading shall be available unless the value of bonus
commodities provided under section 32 of the Act of August
24, 1935 (49 Stat. 774, chapter 641; 7 U.S.C. 612c), and
section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431)
is included in meeting the minimum commodity assistance
requirement of section 6(g) of the National School Lunch Act
(42 U.S.C. 1755(g))''.
On page 47, line 6, strike ``$3,924,000,000'' and insert
``$3,948,000,000''.
Mr. COCHRAN. We are prepared to accept the amendment offered by the
Senator from Iowa. We have made a strong effort to provide adequate
funding in this bill in order to maintain WIC participation within the
budgetary constraints we have faced.
Mr. HARKIN. I certainly appreciate the efforts of the distinguished
Chairman to fund WIC adequately within the limitations of the bill.
However, analysis supporting the Administration's budget request
indicates that the amount provided will not be sufficient to maintain
WIC participation at the level it is expected to reach at the end of
this fiscal year. Because of the success of WIC. I believe it is
important to do whatever we can to ensure that WIC participation does
not fall for lack of funding. My amendment provides a portion--but much
less than all--of the additional appropriation the Administration
believes is necessary to avoid a reduction in WIC participation during
fiscal 1999.
Mr. COCHRAN. I certainly want to provide adequate funding to maintain
WIC participation. We felt that we were providing sufficient funding in
the bill to accomplish that. I would also note that I am concerned
about the effect of the offset in the Senator's amendment on the level
of commodities that may be purchased and provided to schools for the
National School Lunch Program.
Mr. HARKIN. I acknowledge the doubts the Chairman has about the
accuracy of the WIC budget request. Also, as the Chairman knows, I
share his strong support for the School Lunch Program and for supplying
commodities to it. I do have a letter from Secretary Glickman stating
my amendment would not have an adverse effect on the School Lunch
Program. I would be pleased to work with the Chairman and Senator
Bumpers to obtain a more thorough understanding of the needed level of
WIC funding and of the effects of the offset prior to conference on the
bill.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator to work with
us on these questions.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chairman very much for his cooperation on
this amendment and look forward to working with him further on the
matter.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those
amendments be agreed to, en bloc, and that the motion to table the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3188 through 3191), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3176
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Dodd's amendment No. 3176 is the
pending business.
[[Page S8317]]
Amendment No. 3192 to Amendment No. 3176
(Purpose: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require
the Secretary to ensure timely notification of certain recalls)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an
amendment numbered 3192 to Amendment No. 3176.
Mr. DODD. 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:
In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert
the following:
. NOTIFICATION OF RECALLS OF DRUGS AND DEVICES.
(a) Drugs.--Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(o)(1) If the Secretary withdraws an application for a
drug under paragraph (1) or (2) of the first sentence of
subsection (e) and a class I recall for the drug results, the
Secretary shall take such action as the Secretary may
determine to be appropriate to ensure timely notification of
the recall to individuals that received the drug, including
using the assistance of health professionals that prescribed
or dispensed the drug to such individuals.
``(2) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `Class I' refers to the corresponding
designation given recalls in subpart A of part 7 of title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor regulation.
``(B) The term `recall' means a recall, as defined in
subpart A of part 7 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,
or a successor regulation, of a drug.''.
(b) Devices.--Section 518(e) of such Act (21 U.S.C.
360h(e)) is amended--
(1) in the last sentence of paragraph (2), by inserting
``or if the recall is a class I recall,'' after ``cannot be
identified''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) In this subsection, the term `Class I' refers to the
corresponding designation given recalls in subpart A of part
7 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor
regulation.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 705(b) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 375(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or gross'' and inserting ``gross''; and
(2) by striking the period and inserting ``, or a class I
recall of a drug or device as described in section 505(o)(1)
or 518(e)(2).''.
This section shall take effect one day after date of this
bill's enactment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to my own
amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence----
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold. We are
hoping that we can get a response to a request we have made of a
legislative committee to react to the Senator's amendment. Senator
Harkin is on the floor and has an amendment that he has been prepared
to offer for some time. I hope we can proceed in the meantime and
dispose of that amendment. Would the Senator object?
Mr. DODD. No.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
Dodd amendment so the Senator from Iowa can offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michele Chang
and Matthew Thornblad of my staff have floor privileges for the
duration of the consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3193
(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of anti-tobacco activities by the
Food and Drug Administration)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Johnson, proposes an
amendment numbered 3193.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. TEEN ANTI-TOBACCO ACTIVITIES.
(a) Increase in Funds.--The amount described for salaries
and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration under title
VI shall be increased from $1,072,640,000 to $1,172,640,000.
(b) User Fee.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall, not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
and annually thereafter assess and collect from each
manufacturer of tobacco products a user fee for the conduct
of teen anti-tobacco activities by the Food and Drug
Administration.
(c) Amount.--With respect to each year, the user fee
assessed to a manufacturer under subsection (b) shall be
equal to an amount that bears the same ratio to $150,000,000
as the tobacco product market share of the manufacturer bears
to the tobacco market share of all tobacco product
manufacturers for the year preceding the year in which the
determination is being made.
(d) Deposits.--Amount collected under subsection (b) shall
be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury.
(e) Appropriation.--There are authorized to be appropriated
in each fiscal year, and there are appropriated, an amount
equal to the amount deposited into the Treasury under
subsection (d) for that fiscal year, to be used by the Food
and Drug Administration to carry out teen anti-tobacco
activities under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
(f) No Requirement for Payment.--The Secretary shall not
require that a manufacturer pay a user fee under this section
for any tobacco product for any fiscal year if the Secretary
determines that the tobacco product involved as manufactured
by the manufacturer is used by less than 0.5 percent of the
total number of individuals determined to have used any
tobacco product as manufactured by all manufacturers for the
year involved.
(g) Final Determination.--The determination of the
Secretary as to the amount and allocation of an assessment
under subsection (b) shall be final and the manufacturer
shall pay such assessment within 30 days of the date on which
the manufacturer is assessed. Such payment shall be retained
by the Secretary pending final judicial review.
(h) Judicial Review.--The amount of any user fee paid under
subsection (b) shall be subject to judicial review by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, based on the arbitrary and capricious standard of
section 706(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall
have the authority to stay any payment due to the Secretary
under subsection (b) pending judicial review.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I hope we don't have to take too long on
this. I know Senator Reed wants to speak. I don't know that too many
others want to speak on this amendment. It is a very important
amendment. It is simple and straightforward. It simply says that the
laws we have that make it illegal to sell tobacco products to kids
should be adequately enforced. To do that, the amendment I have just
sent to the desk provides full funding for the ongoing anti teen
smoking program at the FDA, which is funded through the Agriculture
Appropriations bill. It pays for this with an assessment fee on tobacco
companies that equals about $25 per teen smoker. The amendment does
nothing more or less than that.
It in no way is intended to be a substitute for action on
comprehensive tobacco reform. I am hopeful we will still have it. It
does not speak for the issue of FDA authority over tobacco products. It
does not impact on tobacco company advertising. And it does not impact
on tobacco farmers. It simply provides the money necessary to continue
an ongoing program, a program that is already in effect, but to do it
in a way that is effective.
This amendment is virtually identical to the amendment that Senators
Chafee, Reed, I, and others, offered last September, which passed this
body by a vote of 70 to 28 last September.
The bill before us provides $34 million for the FDA antiteen smoking
initiative. That was the money that we put in there last September.
That was the 70 to 28 vote that added the $34 million. But $134 million
is needed to assure that the effort is fully effective. This was the
amount requested by the President, and it is basically the same as was
requested in the Commerce Committee tobacco bill.
So, again, the amount that is in this amendment is what was requested
by the President, and it is about the same
[[Page S8318]]
as was requested in the Commerce Committee bill that was voted out of
the Commerce Committee. Our amendment basically increases the amount in
the bill for this purpose from $34 million to $134 million for next
year.
As I said, it is fully offset by establishing an assessment fee on
tobacco companies based on their share of the tobacco market. Because
of budget scoring rules, it is necessary to collect this assessment
totaling about $150 million to provide for an additional $100 million
needed.
For example, if the total tobacco market in the United States this
year is $100 billion, and let's say, for example, Philip Morris has 60
percent of that share, they would pay 60 percent of the $150 million,
or $90 million. So the assessment on the tobacco companies is based
upon their percentage of the total tobacco market in the United States.
As I mentioned, this roughly equates to about $25 per teen smoker.
Mr. President, the amendment, again, returns us to the most
fundamental question of our long and ongoing debate on tobacco. The
fundamental question is whether we are serious about helping America's
kids avoid the deadly addiction of tobacco use, and whether we are
prepared to continue and adequately fund an existing program designed
to deter illegal sales to children.
As I mentioned last year, this body overwhelmingly affirmed increased
funding of the FDA use of the antitobacco initiative with a strong
bipartisan vote, as I said earlier, of 70 to 28. That was a vote on the
Chafee-Reed-Harkin amendment on September 3 of 1997.
For Senators' elucidation, this is basically the same amendment. It
just takes it from $34 million to $134 million. In other words, it
fully funds the program so it can be effective. Plainly and simply,
this amendment is about America's kids and protecting them from the
disease, suffering, and death caused by smoking and nicotine addiction.
With a death toll of more than 400,000 each year, smoking kills more
Americans than AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, fires, homicides, illicit
drugs, and suicide all combined. Mr. President, this is a chart that
most graphically illustrates why tobacco is the No. 1 killer in America
today. As I said, you can add up all of this--alcohol deaths,
accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, illegal drugs, fires--and they
don't equal the 418,690 deaths caused by tobacco last year.
It is an epidemic. It is an epidemic that begins with underage
smoking. We know from the documents that have been released to the
various court cases in the States involving the tobacco companies now
that they have targeted young people. We know from their documents that
90 percent of adult smokers began at or before the age of 18. We know
that for years the tobacco companies have targeted young people to
smoke--not older people. They target young people because they know if
they can get these young people hooked by the time they are 18, they
have got them hooked.
Again, all I ask is look at the advertising the tobacco companies
use. It is always young people. It is Joe Camel. It is young people. It
is young people on the beach. They are having a lot of fun. And it is
designed to get young people. It is not designed for old fogies like
me. It is designed for the young people. All you have to do is look at
the ads the tobacco companies put out there, and you will know they are
trying to get young people hooked.
Today, like every other day, 3,000 young Americans will begin
smoking--3,000; 1,000 of them will die every single day. That is more
than three jumbo jets full of our children crashing every day. At
current smoking rates, 1 million American kids under 18 who are alive
today will die from slow suffocation due to a smoking-related disease.
They will die hooked up to machines and craving nicotine. And teenage
smoking rates are still climbing.
There is a chart that shows the rate among high school seniors. It is
at a 17-year high. It has been shooting up ever since the early 1990s.
We are now at a 17-year high for youth smoking. The addiction is very
real. Almost half of all the kids who experiment with as few as three
cigarettes go on to become regular smokers.
More than half of the kids who smoke daily said that they smoked
their first cigarette within 30 minutes of waking in the morning. I
found that hard to believe. But then I am not a smoker. But I drove
from my house one morning. My daughter goes to a local public school
out in Virginia. About 7 o'clock in the morning I drove her to school.
She had a lot of stuff she had to take. I put her in the car and drove
her down to school. You drive down there, and you see all of these kids
walking down the streets and on the street corners before they go into
school at between 7 and 7:15 in the morning smoking cigarettes. I could
hardly believe it at that early hour.
Then I see that more than half of them smoke their first cigarette
within 30 minutes of waking in the morning. All you have to do is go to
any local school about halfway down the street before the school and
watch the kids walking to school and you will see that this is true.
More than 90 percent of kids who smoke or use spit tobacco experience
at least one symptom of nicotine withdrawal when they try to quit. When
they say you have a choice to smoke or not, once these kids are hooked,
I tell you, they don't have much of a choice.
Compared to the comprehensive tobacco legislation that we need, this
amendment makes just a small investment in the future of our children.
But even this small investment will pay off in longer lives and better
health for millions of Americans. Since each dollar spent to implement
FDA regulations has been shown to result in at least $48 worth of
health and social benefits, it is a sound investment that we can make.
Let me review briefly what this amendment will fund at FDA. Right now
FDA, as I said, has about $34 million in this fiscal year 1998. That is
because of the amendment that was adopted here last September by an
overwhelming vote of 70 to 28. They are using these funds to fund
contracts with 45 States and local jurisdictions to carry out the
enforcement of minimum age restrictions for tobacco purchases and to
require photo ID checks.
The FDA initiative also includes funding to provide information to
retailers and the public to help retailers comply with the rules and
not sell tobacco to kids.
This excerpt that I have from an FDA brochure indicates some of the
educational information that the FDA is using to show why it is
necessary to have a photo ID check. Which one is 16? Is it Melissa or
is it Amy?
If they walked into a store, would the clerk know which one was under
18? Well, to eliminate the guesswork, FDA requires retailers to card
anyone who is under 27.
Melissa here is 16 and Amy is 25. So, again, you really do not know,
and that is why we need a good information campaign to make sure that
retailers know what they are up against in requiring these ID checks.
This year, FDA's current tobacco enforcement budget will fund 200,000
compliance checks. So the money that we voted here last fall, Mr.
President, will fund about 200,000 compliance checks nationwide. That
may sound like a lot, but it only covers one-fifth, one out of five or
20 percent, of the Nation's tobacco retailers. So four out of five
aren't even covered.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has estimated that three-
fourths of the approximately 1 million tobacco outlets in this country
sell tobacco to children--three out of four. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention estimates that minors illegally purchase 256
million packs of cigarettes each year resulting in almost $500 million
in sales. Just think of that. Over $500 million a year flow into the
tobacco companies from the illegal sale of tobacco. Let me repeat that:
$500 million flow into the tobacco companies every year just from the
illegal sales of tobacco to young people.
What are we asking for in this amendment? We are asking for $134
million. And they are making $500 million just off of the illegal sales
to minors.
The Surgeon General has concluded that children are able to buy a
pack of cigarettes or a tin of spit tobacco 67 percent of the time
without once ever being asked for proof of age. The amendment we have
sent to the desk will more than double the number of annual compliance
checks that can be
[[Page S8319]]
conducted and increase to 60 percent the coverage of tobacco outlets
nationwide. Right now, it is only 20 percent. At least this amendment
gets it up to 60 percent of the retail outlets that will be covered
nationwide.
This year, the FDA is able to fund very limited outreach efforts to
educate retailers, parents and the public about access and advertising
restrictions. With the $34 million that we provided last fall, FDA is
conducting radio, billboard and newspaper outreach campaigns, but only
one city per State for 4 weeks out of every year is covered. So the $34
million we put in last year, just think about it, goes to only one city
per State for 4 weeks out of every year. Now, contrast that to what the
tobacco companies spend to push their product. Over $13 million every
day, over half a million dollars per hour; that is what the tobacco
industry is spending every minute around the clock on tobacco
advertising and promotion, a whopping $5 billion--that is with a B--$5
billion a year that they spend. What we are asking for is $134 million
just to get information out to conduct ID checks, to cover just a few
more cities and a few more States.
This amendment we have sent to the desk will allow FDA to conduct
national education and outreach efforts at a level more commensurate
with the problem.
Increased funding at the level we have in our amendment would double
the media exposure and double the number of markets used to communicate
important information about restrictions on access to tobacco and
tobacco advertising to retailers and to the general public.
Comprehensive merchant education programs combined with community
education and strong enforcement programs have been shown to
successfully reduce illegal underage sales by 24 percent.
So you can think of this amendment in another way. How would you like
to cut down on illegal underage sales of tobacco by 24 percent next
year? Well, we all say we do. We all say we want to cut back on teenage
smoking. Here is a proven way, an ongoing program. We are starting no
new program. We are not starting any new bureaucracy, no new laws. All
we are taking is an existing program and funding it a little more
adequately. And we could reduce the illegal underage sales by 24
percent. So it is not a new bureaucratic program.
At least $75 million of the money will go out to State and local
jurisdictions for enforcement. At least $35 million will be used to
educate retailers and the public about the rules so that retailers can
comply. The point of rules is not to punish anyone. It is to prevent
tobacco from being sold to kids.
I just might add that this photo ID check and the minimum age rules
were fully upheld by the Federal District Court in Greensboro, NC.
So to recap, this amendment simply provides funding, full funding for
the ongoing FDA antiteen smoking program. The bulk of the $100 million
goes to States and localities to enforce the rules, and it pays for the
increase through an assessment on tobacco companies based on their
total market share. So, in other words, the largest tobacco companies;
that is, large based on their market share, pay more of the $150
million. The smaller companies, of course, would pay less.
As I said, a very similar amendment was supported by 70 Senators last
September. So if we are prepared to stand with America's kids and their
parents to take even the most basic step of effectively enforcing the
rules against illegal sales of tobacco, this is the way to do it. By
stopping these illegal sales, we can help our children avoid an
addiction that will destroy their health and take their lives. This
amendment will do that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I see my cosponsor and colleague from Rhode Island is in the Chamber.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Harkin's
amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment.
As the Senator indicated, last year this Senate strongly supported a
virtually identical measure which would increase the enforcement
ability of the Food and Drug Administration dramatically. We all know
that in every State in this country it is illegal for children to buy
cigarettes, but we also know it is very easy for children to buy
cigarettes from vending machines and retail outlets. And last year,
there were a staggering total of 256 million packs of cigarettes sold
to children under the age of 18. That is an enormous amount of
cigarettes, as Senator Harkin indicated, roughly $500 million, a huge
market, a very lucrative market. And we all know if we don't take
effective steps to provide for the enforcement of existing State laws
and education of children and, just as importantly, the retail
salespeople, this staggering total will go on and on and on, with
dreadful consequences to the health of our children.
Our effort today is to provide the resources to ensure that illegal
tobacco sales to children are stopped if at all possible. Our amendment
would fully fund the FDA's youth in our tobacco efforts by raising an
additional $100 million by imposing a user fee on tobacco companies
based on their market share. The pending bill, the bill that we are
considering today, provides only $34 million, which is roughly one-
quarter of the request submitted by the administration, to fully and
effectively enforce the tobacco laws in the United States against sales
of tobacco products to children.
Let's put this total in perspective, that we are asking for, this
$100 million. It has already been eclipsed by the amount of money spent
by the tobacco industry in advertising against comprehensive tobacco
legislation this year in the U.S. Senate. Just, in fact, a few moments
ago in the cloakroom, I saw another advertisement being run by the big
tobacco companies. They have already spent much more than that in
trying to prevent effective legislation that will curtail teen smoking
in the United States.
Another aspect we should consider: This $100 million is just roughly
2 percent of the $5 billion that the industry spends each year in
advertising its products, and, as we well know and has been well
documented, too much of this advertising is directed at children.
We have to in some way, some small way, counteract this constant
fusillade of advertising aimed at children, and one way we can do it
today--far short of the comprehensive debate that we had weeks ago--one
way we can do it is ensuring FDA has the resources to adequately
support State efforts to suppress childhood access to tobacco products.
In terms of the money we are requesting, a total of over $100
million, it is also small compared to the health consequences of
tobacco smoking in the United States. It has been estimated that over
$50 billion a year is drained from our health care system because of
tobacco and its effect on children. As Senator Harkin so well
indicated, this is a pediatric disease; it begins with young people.
Mr. President, 90 percent or more of individuals who begin to smoke do
so before they are 18 years of age. Smoking begins around 12 or 13 year
old. Regular smokers are regular smokers by the time they are 14. It is
a pediatric disease. It is costing us billions of dollars a year, and
we have to take effective steps to stop it. This is one way that we can
do it, one way I hope we can do it.
We know, too, enforcement of these laws is a significant way of
curtailing access to tobacco products for children and, we hope,
curtailing their exposure to tobacco and nicotine. One of the
significant aspects of this amendment is, it will allow the FDA to put
more resources into State efforts to curtail access to tobacco products
by young people.
We all were lobbied heavily by different groups--industry groups and
public health groups--about the comprehensive legislation. There is not
one group that came into my office, be they public health advocates or
industry representatives, that did not emphatically and unhesitatingly
say, ``We are in favor of strong enforcement of existing laws that
curtail teen smoking. We want this. We will do this.'' Now we have an
opportunity to fulfill their desire by giving resources to the FDA to
ensure that these laws are strictly and effectively and efficiently
enforced.
We are talking about a situation in which we can provide resources to
bolster the laws that are already on the books. As I indicated, as my
colleague
[[Page S8320]]
indicated, every State in this country curtails teen smoking. Every
quarter of this country speaks out against underage smoking. It is not
just public health advocates, it is the industry. Everyone says this is
wrong. Yet, unfortunately, we are seeing a tremendous rise in smoking
among teenagers. It is rising dramatically. It has increased by over a
third since 1991. It is one of the unfortunate health statistics
related to children in America today. Again, unless we take effective
steps, it will continue to rise.
We know that most young people buy their cigarettes themselves. This
is not some great conspiracy where adults are out supplying kids. These
are young people walking into these stores or getting access to a
vending machine and buying it themselves. We know we can cut down this
abuse, we know we can cut down this access, if we have stronger, better
laws. More enforcement, though, of the existing laws, is certainly the
first place to start.
FDA evidence indicates, if we thoroughly enforce the compliance laws
of the United States, we can significantly reduce teenage smoking. We
can do it without entering into some of the more extensive proposals
that were entertained just weeks ago here. We can do it by providing
the resources of the FDA to support the States so they can both educate
their salespeople in retail categories and also to ensure that we are
checking on what they are doing.
This is a terribly lucrative product. Talking to convenience store
owners, many of them indicated this is the most lucrative product they
have in their stores in terms of the margin on the sales they make.
There is tremendous incentive to backslide, to ignore the regulations,
to do anything you can to make these sales, to do anything you can to
avoid the laws against selling tobacco products to minors. Unless we
check them, unless we supervise them, unless we give real incentives to
the States to do that, that is exactly what will happen, because that
is exactly what is happening today.
We have to, I think, find a way, not just each year coming to this
floor and arguing for additional resources, but in the future I hope we
can find a way to permanently fund sufficient resources to fully
implement State laws and other provisions that will curtail the access
to tobacco products by young people. But today we have the opportunity,
the real opportunity, to provide more resources so we can do in deeds
what we all say in words we want done: To stop young people from buying
tobacco products, to give them a chance to grow up, to give them a
chance later, if they wish, as adults, to make a decision about
smoking.
This is the moment for us to stand up and to literally put our money
where our mouth is. I urge passage of the amendment, and I yield back
my time.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this is the wrong time for a debate on
tobacco taxes. No one is opposed to food safety, but I'm not so
enthusiastic about a plan that raises taxes on already cash-strapped
tobacco farmers to pay for new USDA bureaucrats.
Farmers all over the country are hurting, and we're pledging to help
them, but this amendment will continue to hold up our work on this
bill.
We all know that this is just politics because the House will ``blue
slip'' the bill.
This is certainly the wrong time to make things worse for tobacco
farmers--the real effect of this amendment. This is a misguided attempt
to tax small farmers to pay for the Clinton Administration's new
spending proposals.
Mr. President, like farmers everywhere, tobacco farmers are hurting.
The southeast is dry. We don't know how much tobacco the companies will
buy. We shouldn't be passing any amendments that make their lives any
tougher. This will do just that.
So, the tobacco farmer is about to get hit--again. Like he has been
throughout this tobacco debate, the farmer is forgotten.
The farmer will get hit with lower prices for his tobacco as the
companies try to hold the line on costs.
What happened to all the talk about helping farmers, the demands for
action?
Instead, this amendment proposes to throw up another hurdle in their
way, another obstacle to making the payments, in order to fund
President Clinton's new spending.
The companies will take this tax out of the price paid to the farmer.
This will cost some farmers their farms. Like a lot of farmers, they
are on the edge, and we certainly shouldn't pass legislation to make it
worse.
American tobacco is the most expensive in the world, and the tobacco
companies may respond to higher costs with increased use of imported
tobacco.
Let me say it again: the tobacco farmer can't afford another drop in
income. His production quota keeps dropping, but the loan balances keep
growing.
This amendment is an attempt to score political points. Let's not
play political games at the expense of good public policy.
Further, this amendment initiates a tax measure in the Senate. The
federal budget is 1.6 trillion dollars, but this amendment would raise
taxes, yet again, on small farmers to pay for more bureaucrats.
It's wasteful and unconstitutional.
Tax and spend. Tax and spend.
I want to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of
the agriculture appropriations subcommittee for their work.
This is a critical bill for my State and includes a number of
important provisions for my farmers. I am reluctant to interfere with
it, but if this amendments passes, I will be forced to do so on behalf
of those very farmers.
I will personally call the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
and alert him to ``blue slip'' this bill.
This amendment is anti-farmer, Mr. President. We just passed a Sense
of the Senate resolution declaring our intent to help farmers. We just
added an amendment for disaster assistance that will aid farmers in my
State.
How we can turn around and pass an anti-farmer amendment like this
today? It's not right, Mr. President.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Harkin amendment,
which fully funds the Food and Drug Administration's youth anti-smoking
initiative at $134 million.
These FDA rules were upheld by a Federal court in Greensboro, North
Carolina last year. They prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors, and
require retailers to check the photo identification of consumers who
purchase tobacco products if they look 27 years old or younger. Of the
$134 million which President Clinton requested in his FY1999 budget,
$75 million will go to the States for enforcement, and $35 million will
go for education and outreach to retailers to ensure compliance with
these regulations.
The pending bill provides only $34 million for this important
initiative--$100 million less than President Clinton requested. The
funding level in this bill is clearly inadequate. States will be able
to check only 20% of tobacco retailers to ensure that they are not
illegally selling tobacco products to minors. The additional $100
million in the Harkin amendment will increase that coverage to 60% of
retailers.
By establishing a minimum age to purchase tobacco products, and by
requiring photo ID checks of young buyers, this initiative can make a
significant difference in reducing youth smoking. Teenage tobacco use
in the United States has clearly reached epidemic proportions.
According to a report in April by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, smoking by high school students rose by nearly a third
between 1991 and 1997. Among African-Americans, smoking has soared by
80%. More than 36% of all high school students smoke--a 19-year high.
Once people are hooked on cigarette smoking as children, it is very
difficult for them to quit as adults. Ninety percent of current adult
smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. In other
words, if people reach age 18 without having smoked, they are unlikely
to begin smoking as adults.
Even more disturbing is that teenagers under-estimate the
addictiveness of nicotine. Studies have found that 86% of teenagers who
smoke daily and try to quit smoking are unsuccessful.
Big Tobacco has known this fact for years. The tobacco companies are
fully aware that if they do not persuade children to take up smoking,
the industry will collapse in the next generation. That's why the
industry has targeted children with billions of dollars in advertising
and promotional giveaways. They promise popularity, maturity,
[[Page S8321]]
and success for those who take up smoking.
Evidence from the tobacco industry's own files indicates their
blatant and cynical marketing to kids. A 1975 Philip Morris report by
researcher Myron Johnston described how Marlboro became the most
popular cigarette brand among young smokers. According to Mr. Johnston:
Marlboro's phenomenal growth rate in the past has been
attributable in large part to our high market penetration
among young smokers . . . 15 to 19 years old. . . . My own
data, which includes younger teenagers, shows even higher
Marlboro market penetration among 15 to 17 year olds. . . .
The teenage years are also important because those are the
years during which most smokers begin to smoke, the years in
which initial brand selections are made, and the period in
the life-cycle in which conformity to peer group norm is
greatest.
An R.J. Reynolds memo written before the introduction of the Joe
Camel marketing campaign emphasized that ``younger adult smokers are
critical to R.J. Reynolds' long-term profitability. Therefore, RJR must
make a substantial long-term commitment of manpower and money dedicated
to younger adult smoking programs.''
It's no coincidence that shortly after R.J. Reynolds launched its Joe
Camel campaign in 1988, Camel's share of the youth market skyrocketed
from less than 1% to 33% in the 1990s.
An undated Lorrilard memo stated boldly what we have known all along
about Big Tobacco, that ``the base of our business are high school
students.''
Because the tobacco companies have cynically marketed their deadly
products to children, it is essential for the Senate to take strong
action to prevent cigarettes from getting into the hands of children.
Children and adolescents have little trouble purchasing tobacco
products directly from retailers today. Studies have found that nearly
70% of the time that children and adolescents attempt to buy cigarettes
from retailers, they succeed. If these youngsters have any problem at
the counter, they go to a vending machine, where they can successfully
purchase cigarettes 90% of the time.
According to Professor Joseph DiFranza of the University of
Massachusetts Medical Center, ``If $1 billion in illegal sales were
spread out evenly over an estimated one million tobacco retailers
nationwide, it would indicate that the average tobacco retailer breaks
the law about 500 times a year.''
The Harkin amendment will prevent thousands of children from lighting
up their first cigarette. It is a reasonable step to prevent youth
smoking that has the strong support of the American public. I urge the
Senate to approve it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, first, we should not be legislating on
appropriations bills. We are getting to a point that we cannot pass
appropriations bills for all the legislation that is on the
appropriations bills, especial something of this magnitude.
I understand how easy it is to talk emotionally about children, but
there are two things wrong with this amendment. One, it is not
relevant, because under the unanimous consent agreement that these
would be relevant amendments, this is not. So you have a point there.
Second, there is a budget point of order that will be made against the
amendment, and therefore we should go ahead and, I guess, get rid of
it.
But this is just nibbling again. The bill I wanted to try to get
through here did not go. I wanted to take care of my farmers a little
bit, but no one seems to think about those. It makes it a little bit
hard to take. But the amendment invites us to reopen the tobacco
debate, and I do not think this is the time or the place. What is next,
liability limitations? That would be quite a debate. What next, tax
increases? That would be a real debate. What next, new programs? That
is what we have here, new programs.
We began debating this bill on June 18, 4 weeks ago. It is time we
stopped considering legislative amendments that go way beyond the scope
of this bill.
I received, and I guess all my Democratic colleagues received:
Support Harkin amendment to fund FDA's ongoing teen antitobacco
initiative. This is no anti-teen-smoking initiative, when you get right
down to it. The amendment fully funds the FDA youth and anti-tobacco
efforts by imposing a tobacco industry user's fee of $100 million, or
approximately $25 per child who uses tobacco products. How do you know
that? It is really not $100 million. The amendment says $150 million.
Are we into that phrase now, ``a haircut''--you have to raise $150
million to get $100 million? Anyhow, the information I got was it was
$100 million. I read the amendment and it says $150 million.
This is a tax on adults. This is a tax on adults. It says the tobacco
product market share. It has nothing to do with how many teens smoke.
We hear about ``spit tobacco.'' The HHS set a level, by the year 2000,
of no more than 4 percent of those between 12 and 17 would be using
spit tobacco. The rate today is 1.9. The industry is doing a wonderful
job--twice the amount that was set by HHS by the year 2000, without any
imposition by this legislative body. So now we are putting a tax on
adult smokers, trying to fog it up with teen programs.
Mr. President, I understand what is going on. This is a new tax being
described as a $25-per-kid tax without any basis. It started out with a
survey. That is a terrible way to tax. It has nothing to do with youth
smoking or how many youth are smoking. This is a $150-million tax
increase as assessed based on the share of the adult market--not
teenagers, the adult market. It was based on the adult use of the
product and taxes adult use of the product. It should not be on an
agricultural bill.
The amendment raises taxes, not by $100 million that we have heard,
but $150 million. It is based on a terrible public policy. We should
not be raising taxes on an agriculture appropriations bill anyhow. This
amendment should be defeated, maybe not for its purpose, but for its
procedure.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the arguments made by my
friend and colleague from Kentucky. I want to try to clear it up, if I
can, and say to my colleague from Kentucky that we do not reopen the
tobacco program. This has nothing to do--or tobacco debate.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I did not say anything about the tobacco
program.
Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry, I misspoke. The Senator said something that
it is going to reopen the tobacco debate.
Mr. FORD. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. This doesn't do it.
Mr. FORD. You are already doing that. You are in the tobacco
industry. You are attacking the tobacco industry, and it is all about
tobacco.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield.
Mr. FORD. You have the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. I will get into a discussion with the Senator on this
because this amendment--it kind of all wraps up because the Senator
from Kentucky also said this shouldn't be on an ag appropriations bill.
He also said we should not have a new program. This is not a new
program, it is an ongoing program. It is funded under agricultural
appropriations because we fund the FDA. That is exactly where we fund
the FDA.
This amendment doesn't start anything new. It takes an existing
program at the FDA and expends the money. That is what an
appropriations bill does. We are not legislating on an appropriations
bill. There is no legislation here, I say to my friend from Kentucky.
We are only increasing the money.
Mr. FORD. You are legislating a tax, and it isn't limited to 1 year,
it is ongoing.
Mr. HARKIN. I respond again to the Senator from Kentucky that there
are other assessments and user fees in this bill. So why should the
tobacco companies be exempt from an assessment? There are, I point out,
a number of other assessments on industry in this ag appropriations
bill. So this is nothing new and startling.
Again, we are not reopening the tobacco debate. This amendment was
offered last summer, last September, and was voted on, and it carried
by a vote of 70 to 28.
That amendment raised $34 million. What is different between that
amendment and this amendment is, this amendment raises an additional
$100
[[Page S8322]]
million. I know what the Senator is going to say about the 150. I want
to explain that.
Mr. FORD. I know about the haircut, but in the amendment it is $150
million.
Mr. HARKIN. And I will explain why that is.
Mr. FORD. It is still $150 million out of the taxpayer's pocket.
Mr. HARKIN. The reason it is is because if we put an assessment, I
say to the Senator from Kentucky--if we put an assessment on the
tobacco companies to pay into this, that assessment they can deduct
from their taxes. They deduct it from their taxes. And so in order to
score it to get the $100 million that we need to fully fund the FDA
youth ID check, we have to assess the $150 million because they get to
write that off on their taxes. To get to $150 million, we have to do
the $100 million assessment.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. I sure will yield for a question.
Mr. LOTT. I am trying to get some idea as to where we are on time so
we can notify Members when we can expect a vote. Is the Senator going
to need more time?
Mr. HARKIN. No, I don't need more time. I am going to finish this up.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will take 5 or 6 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I don't need any more time.
Mr. LOTT. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I am
beginning to see the natives circling around here. We hoped we could
have finished this bill at 4 o'clock this afternoon. I urge my
colleagues, we know the issue. There is going to be a point of order
made, and I hope that point of order will proceed. We need to conclude
this bill. We have other work.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield for a question without losing
my right to the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask the leader, this side would like to have a couple
minutes to respond. I have a possible suggestion of having the vote at
7 o'clock and dividing the time equally.
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that we have 15
minutes remaining on this issue, equally divided--half and half--and we
have the vote on the point of order at 7 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I consume
right now.
This is not a new program, it is ongoing. We are not opening any
debates. We had an amendment last fall for $34 million. This adds $100
million more on it. We had to for the scoring. They get $150 million
and they can deduct it from their taxes. The reason it is on ag
appropriations is that it should be here because it has to do with FDA;
it is funding and it is money. That is what an appropriations bill is
all about. We are not legislating on an appropriations bill.
Again, 70 Senators last September voted for this amendment. Seventy
Senators on both sides of the aisle voted for $34 million. This bumps
it up to $100 million to fully fund the youth ID check nationwide.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. We have
debated this issue before, but I will make a couple comments because
maybe some of my colleagues are not aware of what this amendment has.
This amendment has $150 million of a new tax, and unlike any other
tax that we passed that I am aware of, this allows the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to conduct a survey. And from that survey,
she is going to raise--she being Secretary Shalala at this point--is
going to raise $150 million.
I find that incredible. If the Senator wants to raise the cigarette
tax, raise the cigarette tax; say we are going to have an excise of so
many cents per pack, and that is fine, that is legitimate. But to say
we are going to have a survey that basically is going to be deemed to
be accurate and give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the
power and authority to raise that tax is absurd. It is terrible tax
policy.
Then it is to enforce, what? The FDA regs. The FDA regs, some people
are acting like they are sacrosanct, like they are good. FDA regs
dealing with ID check, which I heard my colleague bragging about, have
the Federal Government involved in enforcing ID checks up to age 27.
It is illegal to smoke up to age 18, but we are going to have the
Federal Government setting up an enforcement mechanism to find out if
people 26 years old are buying cigarettes. And if they don't check an
ID--if you have a convenience store or something and you don't ask what
their age is when they are 26 years old, you are in violation of the
regulation, and you can be fined up to $10,000. That is the FDA reg
that he is wanting to give FDA more power to enforce.
Do we really want to give the Federal Government enforcement powers
to be checking the IDs of young adults up to age 26, and if you do not
comply, you can be fined up to $10,000? I think that is absurd. Equally
as bad is to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services taxing
authority, to be able to raise $150 million.
I think they are two of the worst pieces of policy I have seen. We
have debated tobacco at length. I am willing to do some things to
discourage tobacco consumption. All this would do would be to encourage
bureaucracy at FDA. I urge my colleagues to support the point of order
by the Senator from New Mexico.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, have I been yielded time?
Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes left.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Four.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield 4 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
I thank my colleague from Iowa and commend him for raising this issue
and for presenting a way--that has been thus far deterred from becoming
law--of reducing teen smoking. That is the mission here. We have
already seen the leadership kill the comprehensive tobacco bill. So in
the wake of the tobacco bill's death, the only existing nationwide
program to reduce the teen smoking of cigarettes is an FDA rule. The
FDA program needs this additional funding.
We went through extensive debate. I do not know whether the Senator
from Oklahoma is still on the floor, but he voted for this when we
considered it before. Those who oppose this funding once again stand to
say no to protecting our kids, to trying to reduce teenage smoking.
They are standing directly or inadvertently with the tobacco industry.
Mr. President, the FDA rule prohibits--nationwide--the sale of
tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18. Without sufficient
enforcement money, the rule is unnecessary because it will lack the
teeth to force retailers to comply.
Friends of big tobacco have already blocked our attempt to pass a
comprehensive effort to reduce teen smoking, and now what we will see
is tobacco's influence once again prevailing here. They are going to be
able to thwart our existing efforts to control teenage smoking.
What is their mission? Their mission is to get 3,000 kids every day
to buy a pack of butts that is going to ruin their health in not too
many years. So the money that we approve today is a bargain compared to
what we will be forced to spend in later years in treating smoking-
related illnesses.
Mr. President, this is a fairly simple issue. If we adhere to what we
say is our code of conduct--and that is to reduce teen smoking--then
the rest of this debate is superfluous, I must tell you. Yes, we ought
to try to find a way
[[Page S8323]]
to pay for it that is as directly connected to the FDA rule as
possible. That is what we have attempted to do here.
But whether or not you are supporting this amendment has little to do
with the funding issue; it has to do with whether or not we really
believe that stopping teen smoking is a good objective. I hope that we
will see that in a vote that is soon to come, Mr. President.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, how much time do we have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 39 seconds.
Mr. GRAMM. I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this is the second amendment we have had
today on this bill that has, in essence, raised tobacco taxes and spent
the money. I want our colleagues to understand that both parties can
play this game. If we are going to continue, by bits and pieces, to
raise tobacco taxes and spend the money, we are going to raise tobacco
taxes and give the money back to the working men and women of America
by cutting their taxes.
I think we are making an absolute sham out of the appropriations
process. I think we need to stop this kind of business. I am confident
we are going to sustain the point of order against this amendment. But
I want to put people on record, if we are going to continue to raise
tobacco taxes and spend the money, then I am going to move--and I am
sure others will join in that effort--to take that same money and cut
taxes for the working men and women of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 57 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand some point of order is going
to be raised, I assume by the Budget chairman, I suppose, on this; and
then we will have a vote to override the Budget Act. But don't get
caught up in all of that. That is not what it is about. What it is
about is whether this Senate wants to effectively fund an ongoing
program to enforce the rules that keep kids from illegally buying
cigarettes. That is all it is.
We voted on this last September. Seventy Senators voted for it--$34
million. We are bumping it up to $100 million, that is right. Where are
we getting it from? The tobacco companies. Yes, it is an assessment.
But they do not have to pass it on. They do not have to have it as a
tax or whatever. But they have to pay it based upon their market share.
So don't get all caught up in whether this is going to be a tax on
tobacco companies or this budget point of order. That is nonsense. This
is a vote on whether or not we will fund the FDA's program to
effectively cut down on teenage smoking in this country. That is all it
is. And it pays for it by getting an assessment from the tobacco
companies based upon their market share.
Tobacco companies would have to put in $150 million, of which they
get a tax deduction, so we get the $100 million to fund it. That is a
drop in the bucket to what the tobacco companies make every year.
Surely--surely--this Senate can go on record as sticking up for the
kids and making sure we have the money to adequately enforce the FDA
rule so our kids do not become addicted to cigarettes. That is all this
issue is--no more, no less; plain and simple. Which side are you going
to be on when we cast this vote on a so-called budget point of order?
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am for the kids, but I am also for
passing an appropriations bill that helps all the farmers in the United
States and puts into play the entire agricultural program of this
country.
Frankly, Mr. President, the other day I came to the floor and talked
about, how much longer are we going to spend debating the cigarette tax
and various expenditures under that program? I made a mistake, I told
the listeners that we had 2 weeks. We had 4 weeks to debate these
issues. Now we are scheduled to pass appropriations bills that will
keep our Government running and more and more, for some reason, we
leave it to everybody here to speculate--the other side continues to
offer amendments, be it on the tobacco issue or some other program that
has nothing to do with the appropriations process, that delays it and
then puts in motion things that actually put the bill in jeopardy.
The Senator just spoke and said this was not a budget issue. Let me
tell you, it is a budget issue. It is a budget issue to the tune of
$100 million being added to the expenditure side of a balanced budget
5-year plan, because under the Budget Act you cannot count taxes
against expenditures like this. So we are breaking the budget to the
tune of $100 million--$100 million.
It seems to this Senator we ought not to be doing that when we just
got a 5-year agreement in place. And so it is subject to a point of
order. The Senator can say it is technical. I say it is real.
In addition, I say this approach of imposing taxes--and this is a tax
according to the Congressional Budget Office--should not be taking
place on appropriations bills that are already late. Mark my word, the
President of the United States will be giving the Republican
leadership--he will be saying to them, ``You can't get your work done.
You didn't get the appropriations done.''
Let me tell you, this violates the spending caps that we agreed to--
plain and simple. I do not believe we ought to do that on this bill
when that chairman spent weeks and weeks in his committee trying to not
break the caps. We come along with an amendment, and it sounds nice,
sounds kind of sexy politically, but essentially it is reopening the
debate that we had for 4 solid weeks here on the Senate floor.
Now, for all the reasons I stated, but more important, because the
Budget Act so provides, I make a point of order against the pending
amendment under section 302(f) of the Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. President, let me say, I believe the Senate ought to stand up and
say we are not going to break the budget here. We are going to stand on
this point of order of substance and deny the efficacy of this
amendment because it can't sustain the 60 votes required.
I make the point of order and I yield the floor.
Motion to waive Budget Act
Mr. HARKIN. I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive Budget Act. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Glenn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the
[[Page S8324]]
affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained
and the amendment falls.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was rejected.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention to an issue
that is very important to our livestock producers and small
meatpackers. I know that my colleagues are aware of the difficulties
the livestock industry has faced in recent years. In an effort to find
solutions for small farmers and livestock producers, the Secretary of
Agriculture called three separate commissions: The Advisory Committee
on Agricultural Concentration, the National Commission on Small Farms,
and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection.
Each of these commissions has recommended that the ban restricting the
interstate distribution of state-inspected meat be lifted. For that
reason I have introduced, along with Senators Feingold, Thomas,
Brownback, Landrieu, Burns, Enzi, and Roberts, S. 1291, The Interstate
Distribution of State-inspected Meat Act. This proposal would lift the
ban on interstate distribution of state-inspected beef, pork, and
poultry, which are the only products in the United States that face
such a restriction. This measure is endorsemed by the Farm Bureau, the
Farmers Union, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the
American Sheep Industry Association. This issue is one of both fairness
and common sense, and I believe it merits consideration by the Senate.
I'd like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee if he would hold hearings in the Agriculture Committee on
this proposal sometime in the near future, so we could promptly
consider the measure next year.
Mr. LUGAR. I would like to say to my good friend from Utah that I am
aware that this issue has arisen in the past and that it is an
important one. I agree with Senator Hatch that the measure deserves a
hearing in the near future, and I would be happy to work with him to
that end.
Mr. HATCH. I appreciate the willingness of the Chairman of the
Agriculture Committee to give this legislation a hearing, and I believe
it will make for an interesting one. I look forward to working with the
distinguished Senator from Indiana and the Agriculture Committee on
this issue.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the
Chairman of the Agriculture Committee for working this out. I believe
the best procedure for addressing this issue would be through the
Senate Agriculture Committee.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. The $57.2
billion in new budget authority that this bill proposes will benefit
millions of Americans, both urban and rural. In addition to funding
food and nutrition programs such as Food Stamps, WIC, and the school
lunch program, the bill funds almost $1.7 billion worth of badly needed
agricultural research and extension programs to improve the
productivity of our farmers as well as the nutritional value of our
food supply. It allocates $1 billion for farm assistance programs such
as farm ownership and operating loans. It helps restore and protect our
farmlands and watersheds by designating $792 million for conservation
programs. It ensures the safety of our nation's food and medicine by
allocating $952 million to the Food and Drug Administration. Finally,
by providing $2.1 billion for rural development programs, the bill
addresses one of my long-standing priorities--implementing and
maintaining basic community infrastructure. This bill will bring water
and sewer systems to 840 small rural communities. It will allow almost
62,000 of rural America's working families to purchase homes, and, by
providing funding for the construction or rehabilitation of 6,900
rental units, this budget addresses the desperate need for affordable
housing in America's heartland.
For my own state of West Virginia, this bill provides an increase of
$1,250,000 for research on Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture at Leetown,
West Virginia which includes $1,000,000 to initiate trout genome
research. The bill also provides an increase of $300,000 for the
Appalachian Fruit Research Station at Kearneysville, West Virginia to
improve profitability of this important part of the West Virginia farm
sector.
In addition to these and other research programs important to my
state, this bill also includes a number of important conservation
measures. Among these include assistance for the Knapps Creek watershed
project, flood control in the Tygart River and Upper Tygart Valley
watershed, continuation of the important Potomac Headwaters project,
funding the grazing lands initiative in West Virginia, and many other
programs important for West Virginia farmers, rural communities, and
protection of our environment.
The chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee,
Senators Cochran and Bumpers, are very knowledgeable of the many
competing interests that require funding in this bill. They are to be
commended for their ability to craft a bill that meaningfully addresses
the challenges confronting our farmers, rural communities, and the Food
and Drug Administration, given the budgetary constraints within which
they had to work. I applaud their efforts and that of their staff:
Galen Fountain and Carole Geagley for the minority and Rebecca Davies,
Martha Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves for majority.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with
language included in the House version of the agriculture
appropriations bill that could have the effect of depriving rural
working poor families of perhaps the only source of information they
have on the federal Earned Income Tax Credit.
In my own state of Illinois, for tax year 1996, over 750,000 working
families received this critical tax relief. The EITC lifts
approximately 4.6 million children out of poverty each year while
encouraging work. The tax credit helps a substantial number of low-
income working households in rural areas. A 1996 information bulletin
published by the USDA Economic Research Service (No. 724-02) noted the
importance of the EITC for rural working families: ``The earned income
tax credit (EITC) has become a major source of support for low-income
rural workers and their families, especially in the South, where the
rural poor are concentrated. Program benefits for rural areas are
expected to total about $6 billion in 1996 . . . providing benefits to
an estimated 4.5 million low-income rural workers and their families.''
Unfortunately, report language included in the House's FY 1999
agriculture appropriations bill could deter and discourage important
educational work done by CES offices. The language questions the
appropriateness of CES involvement in informing families in their local
communities about the EITC. This language could prompt many CES offices
to discontinue their efforts to educate eligible workers about the tax
credit. If that occurs, substantial numbers of low-income working
families in rural areas could lose an important source of information
about federal tax relief for which they qualify.
In Illinois, Coop Extension Services offices in 22 counties or
communities (many rural) have been working to alert eligible working
families to the EITC. The University of Illinois-Urbana Cooperative
Extension Service provides programs to low-income working parents and
students, including a teen parent welfare-to-work program in the high
schools of East St. Louis. It published a notebook, ``The Easy Way to
Prepare Your 1996 Individual Income Tax Return,'' for distribution to
program participants. The notebook contains simplified tax return
instructions, including how to determine eligibility for the EITC and
calculate the amount of the credit. The program surveyed participants,
and found that only a third of the participants had filed a tax return
previously, but 86 percent filed a return after their training. A third
of the participants were found to be eligible for the EITC.
The House language is simply not acceptable and should be rejected by
the Senate conferees on the agriculture appropriations bill.
Market Access Program
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments about my
[[Page S8325]]
amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that was adopted last
night by the Senate. This amendment requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to make important information about the Market Access
Program (MAP) and its expenditures available to the Congress and to the
General Accounting Office (GAO).
It is no secret that I am no fan of this program, Mr. President. I
would have rather eliminated funding for the Market Access Program
completely, as we attempted to do with an earlier amendment.
Unfortunately, this wasteful program's corporate handouts survived, but
the reporting amendment adopted by the Senate will at least give
auditors the tools they need to thoroughly investigate the impact of
this program.
As I pointed out earlier on the floor of the Senate, the claims that
are continually used to justify MAP and extend its life have been
called into question by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a study
published last year. The report, which was requested by the Chairman of
the House Budget Committee, John Kasich, evaluated claims that MAP
benefits the U.S. economy, boosts the agriculture sector, and helps
counter competitor nations' agricultural export assistance programs.
The GAO could not find evidence to authenticate any of these claims.
In fact, the GAO assailed the lack of accountability within the
Market Access Program and the general lack of clear and complete data
available for their analysts.
With major questions left unanswered, the GAO has been unable to
produce an honest and useful evaluation of the program that could help
Congress and program administrators choose policies that will provide
the most benefits to the United States.
In the conclusion to its report on the Market Access Program, GAO
suggested that ``Congress may wish to direct USDA to develop more
systematic information on the potential strategic value of U.S. export
assistance programs.''
That is exactly what this amendment will do.
My amendment requires the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation
with the Comptroller General of the United States, to submit a report
that analyzes the costs and benefits of the program in compliance with
OMB guidelines and treats resources as fully deployed, two of the GAO's
main criticisms of earlier program analyses for MAP and other export
assistance programs.
The amendment would require the USDA to estimate the impact on the
agriculture sector as well as on U.S. consumers, while also considering
the costs and benefits of alternative uses of the funds currently
allocated to MAP.
Another requirement calls for an analysis of increases in exports,
controlling for outside influences, such as exchange rates and
international market conditions, that can have a great influence on
international trade.
Finally, the Department is required to evaluate the sustainability of
promotion efforts in the absence of government subsidies, an important
question that has not been asked throughout the life of these programs.
Again, Mr. President, I would have liked to eliminate the funding for
MAP altogether and turn to other, proven programs to increase the
strength of our agriculture sector, but this amendment moves in the
right direction by opening up the inner workings of MAP and making this
program more accountable.
I am hopeful that using these recommendations to gather additional
useful information in a report to Congress will finally establish what
benefits can truly be attributed to MAP and will help us make informed
decisions about this program.
The Meat Labeling Act
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the Senate has
accepted the Meat Labeling Act of 1998 as an amendment to S. 2159, the
Agricultural Appropriations Bill of 1998 which provides appropriations
for FY 1999 for the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food
and Drug Administration, and other related agencies.
As we all know, we can easily determine which country manufactured
the automobiles we drive through country of origin labeling. We can
easily tell where our clothing was made by simply looking at the label
or tag on our shirts or trousers. And also, we can easily determine
where our computers, stereos, and telephones were made by simply
looking at the products' label. But, surprisingly, when we go to the
grocery store to purchase meat products for our families to eat, we
have no idea where that meat originated.
Throughout my service in the United States Congress, I have been a
strong believer in country of origin labeling for products--whether it
be for automobiles, clothing, technological, or food products. I have
been an especially strong supporter of country of origin labeling for
meat products because of its common-sense nature, its benefits to
ranchers, farmers, and consumers, its strong bipartisan and
agricultural group support, its cost-free benefit to taxpayers as
scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and its trade friendly
provisions.
After many years of effort to pass meat labeling legislation, we have
finally succeeded. I would like to thank Senator Craig for his strong
support and willingness to work with me, as well as Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member
Bumpers.
In April of 1997, I introduced, along with Senators Craig, Daschle,
Burns, and Baucus S. 617, the Meat Labeling Act of 1997, which would
require that beef and lamb products be labeled for country of origin so
consumers can make the choice to buy meat produced from livestock
raised on American ranches and farms.
Since my introduction of S. 617, the Meat Labeling Act of 1997,
received the strong bipartisan support of 16 of my colleagues--8
Democrats and 8 Republicans. Also, it has enjoyed the enthusiastic
support of every major agricultural organization including the National
Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemens Beef
Association, and the American Sheep Institute.
The amendment that has been accepted by the Senate, the Meat Labeling
Act of 1998, has the same country of origin labeling spirit in mind but
has been modified slightly from S. 617. My amendment requires beef and
lamb meat products to be labeled as imported and allows for voluntary
labeling of those beef and lamb products for their country of origin.
The Meat Labeling Act of 1998 is designed in the following way. My
amendment requires beef and lamb meat products to be labeled as
imported beef or imported lamb, and it permits imported beef and lamb
to bear a label identifying the country-of-origin. US beef and lamb
would also bear labels of designation. Finally, beef and lamb products
blended with beef or lamb from the US and another country would bear a
blended label.
Also, the Meat Labeling Act of 1998 creates a voluntary labeling
study for ground beef or lamb. As you may know, ground beef (hamburger)
and lamb are the remains of meat carcasses after they are utilized for
the prime cuts. My legislation recognizes the difficulties in
determining the exact country of origin status of the ground beef or
lamb and therefore, does not mandate it to be labeled for country of
origin immediately.
Instead, my legislation is designed to allow a study of the impact
and costs to producers, processors, and consumers of labels for ground
beef or lamb. After one year of voluntary labeling, the United States
Secretary of Agriculture will then take six months to determine the
costs, benefits, and impacts of voluntary labeling and if the Secretary
deems it to be cost effective and beneficial to all involved then the
labeling of ground beef and lamb will become effective.
As we all know, America's ranchers and farmers are very proud of the
fine beef and lamb products they produce. This legislation reflects
that pride our ranchers and farmers have in their products. In fact,
ranchers and farmers throughout South Dakota tell me over and over that
when America's consumers have a choice between US beef or imported
beef, consumers will chose US beef because of its quality and its
nutritional value.
The benefits to consumers are many. First of all, consumers have the
right to know where their food is produced because of prices, quality,
taste, safety, etc. If passed, this legislation will finally permit the
competitive free market to determine the demand and price of beef and
lamb meat products through consumer choice.
[[Page S8326]]
Also, a national survey in December 1995 found 74 percent of
consumers favored labeling; 51 percent would buy American produce, even
if it cost more than imports of equal quality and appearance.
Furthermore, an April 1997 survey conducted in Florida showed that 96
percent consumers surveyed strongly agreed that food products should
have a country of origin.
Clearly, this evidence shows that American consumers want country of
origin labeling for the food they eat.
Labeling is affordable. Preliminary estimates from USDA show that
labeling meat may cost an estimated 20 CENTS per customer per year.
This legislation is consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT.) Most of our major trading partners, including Canada,
Japan, Australia and the EU, require country of origin labeling for
produce and meat products. This legislation simply levels the playing
field for our producers and consumers.
Clearly, the Meat Labeling Act of 1998 is broadly supported by
American producers and consumers. It enjoys strong bipartisan support
in Congress, is endorsed by every major agricultural organization,
incurs zero costs to taxpayers, and benefits consumers in numerous
ways.
I would like share from you part of a recent letter I received from
the major agricultural organization supporting my legislation:
``Consumers demand quality and consistency, and producers are
continually working to meet consumer demands. With the current system,
there is limited ability to identify the source of product that does
not meet consumer demands. Import labeling will help differentiate
products in the retail meat case and increase competition among product
lines. With labeling, consumers will have the ability to make informed
decisions when purchasing meat and meat products an the relative value
of meat from different product lines will be determined through
competitive forces in the marketplace.''
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be
printed in the Record: A letter addressed to me from the National
Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the American Sheep Industry
Association, a July 15, 1998, letter from the National Consumers League
the largest and oldest consumer organization in the United States, and
a September 16, 1997 editorial from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 8, 1997.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: The following organizations urge you
to join the bi-partisan co-sponsorship and support for the
``Meat Labeling Act of 1998,'' to be substituted for the
original S. 617 language and offered as an amendment to the
Senate agricultural appropriation bill.
Industry leaders from each organization testified before
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
to urge support for legislation to require labeling of
imported meat. The ``Meat Labeling Act of 1998'' will address
frustrations among U.S. producers who question why livestock
imported into the U.S. for immediate slaughter are allowed to
be marketed as U.S. product. In short, the bill will ensure
truth in labeling. The legislation does not establish trade
barriers to limit the ability of countries to export meat to
the U.S. and does not violate U.S. obligations under
provisions of international trade agreements. It is our
understanding that the proposed legislation is consistent
with U.S. responsibilities and commitments to the GATT and
NAFTA.
During 1997, beef imports were equal to about 9 percent of
total U.S. beef production. Most of this imported beef was
blended into ground beef or processed beef products or sold
at the retail meat case as U.S. product. In addition to beef
imports, nearly 1.1 million live cattle were imported from
Canada directly to U.S. packing plants during 1997. Although
all of the value-added production took place in Canada, once
these cattle were processed in U.S. packing plants they
effectively became U.S. beef. Imported lamb on a volume basis
has increased from just over 7 percent of the U.S. lamb
supply in 1993, to 20 percent in 1997. During the first
quarter of 1998, lamb imports reached 25 percent and when
computed on a carcass equivalent basis made up approximately
one-third of the total lamb supply in the U.S.
Consumers demand quality and consistency, and producers are
continually working to meet consumer demands. With the
current system, there is limited ability to identify the
source of product that does not meet consumer demands. Import
labeling will help differentiate products in the retail meat
case and increase competition among product lines. With
labeling, consumers will have the ability to make informed
decisions when purchasing meat and meat products and the
relative value of meat from different product lines will be
determined through competitive forces in the marketplace.
The following organizations greatly appreciate your
leadership in this effort. We look forward to working with
you to enact this legislation.
Sincerely,
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Sheep Industry Association.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
National Farmers Union.
____
National Consumers League,
Washington, DC, July 15, 1998.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: The National Consumers League, the
nation's oldest nonprofit, consumer advocacy organization,
supports the requirement to label imported meat and meat food
products. As consumption and reliance on imported meat
increases, it is vital that consumers are afforded the utmost
levels of protection to prevent food-borne illness. One of
the most effective means to achieve this goal is through
consumer knowledge. Clear and accurate labeling of the
country of origin of meat is an important step to providing
consumers with such knowledge.
Labeling is a powerful tool to inform consumers about the
origins of the food they eat. While America's meat supply is
considered the safest in the world, a large portion of the
meat Americans consume is from other countries. By labeling
meat, consumers will have an informed choice and a right to
know the product's origin.
We thank you for providing strong leadership on this issue.
We look forward to working with you to continue to ensure
that American consumers enjoy the safest possible food
supply.
Sincerely,
Brett Kay,
Program Associate, Health Policy.
____
[From the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Sept. 16, 1997]
Consumers Have Right to Know Origin of Meat
Many U.S. consumers assume the meat they purchase at the
grocery store is produced by American farmers, but that's not
necessarily so.
Imported meat inspected abroad under standards set by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture goes on the shelves unlabeled
with reference to the country of origin, just as U.S. meat
does.
Consumers have a right to know where the meat they buy
comes from. Just about every other item in stores is so
labeled.
A bill introduced by U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., would
require country-of-origin labeling of meat at retail outlets.
Lawmakers may be hesitant to pass the law for fear of
drawing ire from trading partners that might suffer from
xenophobic consumers. They should consider the history of
other imported products. Labeling certainly hasn't hurt the
market for Japanese cars, French perfume or apples from New
Zealand.
The recent recall of 25 million pounds of suspect ground
meat by a Hudson Foods plant in Columbus, Neb., shines a
glaring light on the importance of knowing sources of meat.
The E. coli contamination is thought to have originated at a
slaughterhouse--but where?
The uncertainty is unfair to producers and packers that run
tight ships, because consumers who can't determine the
origination of a problem will consider all sources a
possibility.
A meat-labeling law would best require wholesale buyers to
record the sources of meat they purchase by company name as
well as location.
Meaningful meat labeling would hold producers both in
foreign countries and in the United States accountable for
the quality and safety of their products.
Consumers, livestock producers and reputable packers should
all be clamoring for a law to identify the origin of meat.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year
1999.
The Senate-reported bill provides $56.7 billion in new budget
authority (BA) and $40.8 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 $55.2 billion in BA
and $47.5 billion in outlays for FY 1998. Including mandatory savings,
the Subcommittee is at its 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays.
[[Page S8327]]
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 302(b) allocation
totals $55.2 billion in budget authority (BA) and $47.5 billion in
outlays. Within this amount, $13.7 billion in BA and $14.1 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 at the
Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays. It is $43 million
in BA and $24 million in outlays above the President's budget request
for these programs.
I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its
302(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. I
urge the adoption of the bill.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2159, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 1999--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1999, dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,715 .............. 41,460 55,175
Outlays..................... .............. 14,080 .............. 33,429 47,509
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,715 .............. 41,460 55,175
Outlays..................... .............. 14,080 .............. 33,429 47,509
1998 level:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,930 .............. 35,048 48,978
Outlays..................... .............. 14,227 .............. 35,205 49,432
President's request:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,672 .............. 41,460 55,132
Outlays..................... .............. 14,056 .............. 33,429 47,485
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............ .............. 13,596 .............. 41,460 55,056
Outlays..................... .............. 14,031 .............. 33,429 47,460
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Outlays..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
1998 level:
Budget authority............ .............. -215 .............. 6,412 6,197
Outlays..................... .............. -147 .............. -1,776 -1,923
President's request:
Budget authority............ .............. 43 .............. .............. 43
Outlays..................... .............. 24 .............. .............. 24
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............ .............. 119 .............. .............. 119
Outlays..................... .............. 49 .............. .............. 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
nutrition education and training program
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I raise the visibility of a little-known,
but praiseworthy, program--the Nutrition Education and Training
Program. I am speaking today in defense of this program, which now
seems to be on life-support, and in dire need of resuscitation. For
those who are not aware, the Nutrition Education and Training Program,
NET, is a direct grant-to-States program which provides the nutrition
education and food service training component of the Child Nutrition
Programs. Under NET, all funds are distributed to the States. States
and local governments leverage these limited resources into effective
and innovative education and training programs for children, food
service personnel, and parents. I know in my own State of Vermont, the
creativity and innovation of the NET staff has provided unique and
valuable nutrition materials that are relevant to thousands of
Vermonters. Over the past 20 years, NET has promoted an infrastructure
and quality standards that support local schools in providing
nutritious meals and improving the health and nutrition behavior of our
Nation's children. State and local NET coordinators have been
responsible for much of the local success of the nutrition education
effort.
NET programs are intended to teach children about the nutritional
value of foods and the relationship between food and health. The
program is also intended to provide nutrition education for teachers
and training in nutrition and food service management for school food
service personnel, and to facilitate development of classroom materials
and curricula. This is done through a State Nutrition Education
Coordinator who identifies the needs of the State--this is important--
the program is not one size fits all, full of restrictions and mandates
from Washington, but rather a cooperative program that is tailored to
State needs.
Sadly, I am here today to report on the dire funding status of NET.
In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, NET has struggled along at a level of
only $3.75 million--this is a far cry from the original program in
1978-79 of $26.2 million--giving each State a level of 50 cents per
child. The fiscal year 1999 House appropriations bill funds NET at only
$3.75 million and the Senate bill provides nothing--putting all funds
into Team Nutrition at $10 million. This low level of funding has
diminished NET's effectiveness and threatens its viability to provide
nutrition education to the nearly $9 billion Child Nutrition Programs
it supports.
A few years ago, as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I
supported a change in the law to provide NET with a guaranteed $10
million per year to provide important Nutrition Education activities.
This level is not a budget-busting amount, and is in fact the amount
the President requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget for this
program. Unfortunately, in the rush toward welfare reform in 1996,
NET's status as a mandatory program was rescinded, and the funding
levels for NET have been problematic ever since.
I urge when the Conference on the Agriculture appropriations bill
convenes that NET be provided adequate funding. The Child Nutrition
Programs are absolutely critical to our Nation's future. Along with
those benefits, we must give our children the chance to choose the
right foods, to select a diet suited for them based on the facts and
not on the latest billion-dollar junk food advertising.
Nutrition for the Elderly Program
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in order to engage the
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator
Cochran in a brief colloquy regarding the need for increased funding
for the nutrition for the elderly program, contained in this bill.
Senior nutrition programs are our best defense against elderly hunger
and malnutrition. The House has provided $10 million more than the
Senate for this program which helps our elderly, low-income seniors
have good, nutritious meals. This increased funding would restore funds
for both meals on wheels and meal sites by $10 million to $150 million
to their FY96 levels.
The Senior nutrition program provides grants to states so that local
organizations can prepare meals delivered to elderly persons in both
congregate settings or in their homes. Many poor seniors rely on these
programs as their primary source for nutrition. Unfortunately, 41% of
Meals on
[[Page S8328]]
Wheels programs have a waiting list. As the senior population grows,
these waiting lists will only increase without adequate funding both
local and federal for home-delivered meals programs. The average
beneficiary for senior nutrition programs is 77 years old and 90% of
beneficiaries live on income below 200% of the poverty level. 40% live
on incomes below the poverty level. These poor seniors really need this
program. I hope that the House level of funding will alleviate some of
these waiting lists.
Studies conducted at the University of Florida found that over 66% of
beneficiaries of senior nutrition programs are at moderate to high risk
for malnutrition. In addition, these senior nutrition programs not only
make good social policy sense, but they also make good fiscal policy
sense. Every $1 spent on this nutrition program saves $3 in federal
Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' health care costs, since malnourished
patients stay in the hospital nearly twice as long as well-nourished
seniors, costing $2,000 to $10,000 more per stay. HHS Secretary Shalala
has called these elderly nutrition programs ``a bargain for the federal
government''.
This program also provides cash assistance to state agencies to help
store and donate food to low-income seniors.
Home-delivered meals programs highlight positive values through
volunteerism and community support. It is this type of cost-effective,
federal-local partnership that Congress should be encouraging. This
level of funding is endorsed by the National Council of Senior
Citizens, the Grey Panthers and the Meals on Wheels Association of
America.
4 million seniors live in poverty in this, the richest nation in the
world. Another 16 million live near the poverty level. Our seniors are
going hungry because we cut funding for this seniors nutrition program
two years ago. Now is the time to restore this funding to its FY96
levels in conference.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Illinois. As Senator Durbin
knows, the committee has worked hard over the past several years to
maintain this very important program. I will work with my colleagues in
conference to see that the House level of funding is available for
seniors. With the greying of America, the need for this program has
clearly increased and as the Senator from Illinois has stated, many of
these meals on wheels sites have long waiting lists. I thank the
Senator from Illinois for bringing this issue to our attention.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to make an announcement here of
how we are going to proceed for the balance of the night.
Senator Sam Brownback Receives Golden Gavel Award
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to recognize the distinguished
Senator that is the Presiding Officer at this time. He is another one
of our Members that has reached that magic mark of 100 hours as
Presiding Officer. Senator Brownback has done an outstanding job in
presiding and handling the gavel. He has earned the Golden Gavel Award.
This is a tradition that started several years ago, and it helps make
this institution work as it should. And I would like to extend a sense
of appreciation to Senator Brownback for his time as the Presiding
Officer.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Since the 1960's, the Senate has recognized those dedicated Members
who preside over the Senate for 100 hours with the Golden Gavel. This
award continues to represent our appreciation for the time these
dedicated senators contribute to presiding over the U.S. Senate--a very
important duty.
Senator Brownback spent a significant amount of unscheduled time in
the chair during last night's votes and still insisted upon meeting his
presiding duties today. For his ongoing commitment to presiding, we
thank him and extend our congratulations on receiving the Golden Gavel
Award.
Order of Procedure
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators with
regard to the schedule tonight, I understand the Senate will be voting
very shortly now on final passage of the agriculture appropriations
bill. The managers have worked out the Dodd amendment, and we will be
shortly ready to go to final passage.
Following that vote, the Senate would then resume consideration of
the HUD-VA appropriations bill. There is an amendment pending to that
appropriations bill, which I understand may be withdrawn. But it is my
hope and the intent of the managers--I was just talking to Senator Bond
and Senator Mikulski--that we would get time agreements on amendments
that are pending, and finish all debate on all amendments tonight, and
then the votes that would be required would be in the morning at 9:30.
We would then go to the legislative appropriations bill during
Friday's session.
So votes could be expected on Friday's session at 9:30 with one other
possible vote.
I am hoping maybe that the legislative appropriations bill will not
have any complicating issues and that it could be handled by a voice
vote, or with only one vote.
I would like to finish it all tonight. But the managers have a number
of amendments they have to work through.
So what we would have, then, as we now see it, is final passage on
agriculture, go to HUD-VA, and we have one issue that may be resolved,
which would then not require a vote, and then we would go on to the
amendments.
So it is possible that after this next vote, the next recorded vote
will not be until 9:30 in the morning. We will do everything we can to
not go late tomorrow and certainly not later than 12 o'clock. But
cooperation from Senators on both sides will allow us to actually
finish it up by 10 o'clock or 10:30 tomorrow.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is the last vote?
Mr. LOTT. We have one other issue we have to get clarified. This
could be the last vote, but right now we could have one more right
after this one. And we will clarify that in the next few minutes and
notify all Senators.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
Mr. REID. Is there a unanimous consent pending?
Mr. LOTT. There is no unanimous consent request pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Amendment No. 3192
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President we are now on the Dodd amendment. We had
asked for the yeas and nays. We now have been able to work out that
amendment and agreed to take that amendment to conference.
I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated with that
understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3192, As Modified
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modification of my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 3192), as modified, is as follows:
In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert
the following:
SEC. ____. NOTIFICATION OF RECALLS OF DRUGS AND DEVICES.
This section shall be referred to as ``Matthew's Law''.
(b) Drugs.--Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(o)(1) If the Secretary withdraws an application for a
drug under paragraph (1) or (2) of the first sentence of
subsection (e) and a class I recall for the drug results, the
Secretary shall take such action as the Secretary may
determine to be appropriate to ensure timely notification of
the recall to individuals that received the drug, including
using the assistance of health professionals that prescribed
or dispensed the drug to such individuals.
``(2) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `Class I' refers to the corresponding
designation given recalls in subpart A of part 7 of title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor regulation.
``(B) The term `recall' means a recall, as defined in
subpart A of part 7 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations,
or a successor regulation, of a drug.''.
(c) Devices.--Section 518(e) of such Act (21 U.S.C.
360h(e)) is amended--
(1) in the last sentence of paragraph (2), by inserting
``or if the recall is a class I recall,'' after ``cannot be
identified''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S8329]]
``(4) In this subsection, the term `Class I' refers to the
corresponding designation given recalls in subpart A of part
7 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, or a successor
regulation.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 705(b) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 375(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or gross'' and inserting ``gross''; and
(2) by striking the period and inserting ``, or a class I
recall of a drug or device as described in section 505(o)(1)
or 518(e)(2).''.
This section shall take effect one day after date of this
bill's enactment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been vitiated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been vitiated.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say briefly, if I may, for purposes
of the Record on this amendment, I want to express my gratitude to the
managers of the underlying bill, the agriculture appropriations bill,
for their support on this, as well as my colleague from Vermont,
Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts.
There may be some technical questions that have to be addressed in
conference.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we please have order in the Chamber.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there may be some technical questions that
we will have to address in conference, and I have agreed, if that is
the case, I would certainly strongly support those corrections, but I
am deeply grateful for support of this amendment and ask unanimous
consent it be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3192), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the first-degree amendment
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3176), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have reached the point where we are
prepared to recommend approval of two other amendments that we have
cleared on both sides. It is my understanding we have. And I ask my
colleague from Arkansas if he is prepared to recommend the passage of
our amendment that we are offering for Senators Baucus, Leahy, and
Sessions, and then an amendment offered in behalf of Senator Coverdell.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the first amendment that the chairman
mentioned has been cleared on this side. The amendment by Senator
Coverdell has not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Amendment No. 3194
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment that I suggested had been
cleared is one that is offered by Senators Bumpers and myself for
Senators Baucus, Leahy, and Sessions. I understand that amendment has
been cleared on both sides. I send that amendment to the desk and ask
that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and
Mr. Bumpers, for Mr. Baucus, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sessions,
proposes an amendment numbered 3194.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 13, line 11, strike ``$50,500,000'' and insert
``$51,400,000''.
On page 14, line 17, strike ``$432,082,000'' and insert
``$432,982,000''.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide additional
funding for three new special research grants, as follows:
Food safety (Alabama) $300,000;
Brucellosis vaccine (Montana) $150,000; and
Food Science Center (Vermont) $150,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3194) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other requests for
recognition.
I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be listed as a
cosponsor on the Bumpers sense-of-the-Senate resolution on program
funding levels which was previously adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Did the clerk read the bill for the third time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the House bill.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4101) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1999, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All after the enacting clause of H.R. 4101 is
stricken, and the text of S. 2159, as amended, is inserted in lieu
thereof.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 4101), as amended, was ordered to a third reading and
was read the third time.
Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Kyl
Santorum
NOT VOTING--1
Glenn
The bill (H.R. 4101), as amended, was passed, as follows:
[The text of the bill was not available for printing. It will appear
in a future edition of the Record.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate insists on its amendment, requests
a conference with the House, and the Chair appoints the following
conferees.
The Presiding Officer [Mr. Sessions] appointed Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
[[Page S8330]]
Leahy, Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I express my sincere appreciation to all
Senators for their assistance and cooperation in the consideration of
the agriculture appropriations bill. In particular, I thank my
distinguished colleague and good friend from Arkansas, who has served
for 20 years as a member of this committee and was helping manage the
agricultural appropriations bill for the last time in his Senate
career. He has been not only a very good friend but very helpful,
thoughtful, intelligent and effective as a Senator in this capacity,
helping shape this legislation during the time we have had the
opportunity to work together as members of the Appropriations
Committee.
I am going to miss him very much. The Senate is going to miss Dale
Bumpers. He is one of the most astute, articulate and effective
Senators serving in the Senate today.
I want Senators to know, too, that at my request, this bill includes
a general provision to designate the United States National Rice
Germplasm Evaluation and Enhancement Center in Stuttgart, AR, the Dale
Bumpers National Rice Research Center.
In my judgment, Senator Bumpers is the father of this center. He has
helped guide the development of the research there in this important
agriculture sector. I think it is very appropriate and I was pleased
that the subcommittee included that in our committee print. It was
approved by the full committee and is included in the bill that was
passed by the Senate.
Mr. President, I also say that without the wonderful assistance of
members of our staff and the other members of our subcommittee, the
passage of this bill would not have been possible.
I particularly praise the hard work and effective work of the chief
clerk of our subcommittee, Rebecca Davies. Those who have assisted her
have also turned in exemplary performances, and I appreciate very much
all of their work. They are: Martha Scott Poindexter, Rachelle Graves,
Hunt Shipman, who is a member of my personal staff and legislative
assistant for agriculture and other issues, and our summer intern,
Haywood Hamilton, from Albin, MS, who we are glad to have with us in
our office this summer.
Those who worked closely with Senator Bumpers on the Democratic side:
Galen Fountain, his chief assistant on this subcommittee we have come
to know and appreciate over a period of time, and we are grateful for
his excellent assistance; Cornelia Teitka, who is a designee allocated
to us as a resource from the Department of Agriculture, has been very
helpful in the handling of the legislation; Ben Noble and Carole
Geagley also have assisted them from Senator Bumpers staff. We thank
them all. We appreciate very much everyone's good efforts in the work
on this bill.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I extend my congratulations and appreciation
to the managers of this very important agriculture appropriations bill.
My colleague from the State of Mississippi, Senator Cochran, always
exhibits patience and real leadership on this important legislation. I
thank him for what he does. And also to Senator Bumpers, I think it is
absolutely appropriate that this National Center on Rice Research be
named after Senator Bumpers. He certainly has labored in the vineyards
on rice and also on the agriculture appropriations bill.
So thank you both for the work that you have done.
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield for a moment?
Mr. LOTT. Certainly.
Mr. DASCHLE. I join with the majority leader in complimenting the
manager, the very distinguished Senator from Mississippi, as well as
our ranking member. This will be the last bill our ranking member will
manage, at least on the appropriations side. He may have other
responsibilities in other committees, but on this bill it will be his
last bill. We will miss his managerial skills, his remarkable sense of
humor, and the ability that he demonstrates each and every day to work
with all of us. So I compliment both of them and thank them for their
fine work tonight.
I thank the majority leader for yielding.
____________________