[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.

                          ____________________