[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 113 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10201-S10214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S10201]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

                              (Continued)


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1530

(Purpose: To redesignate the National School Lunch Act as the ``Richard 
                B. Russell National School Lunch Act'')

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Redesignation of National School Lunch Act as 
     Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.--(a) In 
     General.--The first section of the National School Lunch Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1751 note) is amended by striking ``National 
     School Lunch Act'' and inserting ``Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The following provisions of law 
     are amended by striking ``National School Lunch Act'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``Richard B. Russell National 
     School Lunch Act'':
       (1) Sections 3 and 13(3)(A) of the Commodity Distribution 
     Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; 
     Public Law 100-237).
       (2) Section 404 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1424).
       (3) Section 201(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
     the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
     1954, and for other purposes'', approved September 21, 1959 
     (7 U.S.C. 1431c(a); 73 Stat. 610).
       (4) Section 211(a) of the Agricultural Trade Suspension 
     Adjustment Act of 1980 (7 U.S.C. 4004(a)).
       (5) Section 245A(h)(4)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a(h)(4)(A)).
       (6) Sections 403(c)(2)(C), 422(b)(3), 423(d)(3), 741(a)(1), 
     and 742 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(c)(2)(C), 
     1632(b)(3), 1183a note, 42 U.S.C. 1751 note, 8 U.S.C. 1615; 
     Public Law 104-193).
       (7) Section 2243(b) of title 10, United States Code.
       (8) Sections 404B(g)(1)(A), 404D(c)(2), and 404F(a)(2) of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-
     22(g)(1)(A), 1070a-24(c)(2), 1070a-26(a)(2); Public Law 105-
     244).
       (9) Section 231(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Carl D. Perkins 
     Vocational Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2341(d)(3)(A)(i)).
       (10) Section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)).
       (11) Section 1397E(d)(4)(A)(iv)(II) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (12) Sections 254(b)(2)(B) and 263(a)(2)(C) of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1633(b)(2)(B), 
     1643(a)(2)(C)).
       (13) Section 3803(c)(2)(C)(xiii) of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       (14) Section 602(d)(9)(A) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 474(d)(9)(A)).
       (15) Sections 2(4), 3(1), and 301 of the Healthy Meals for 
     Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 1751 note; Public 
     Law 103-448).
       (16) Sections 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16(b), 17, and 19(d) of the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772, 1773, 1776, 
     1779, 1782, 1785(b), 1786, 1788(d)).
       (17) Section 658O(b)(3) of the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858m(b)(3)).
       (18) Subsection (b) of the first section of Public Law 87-
     688 (48 U.S.C. 1666(b)).
       (19) Section 10405(a)(2)(H) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-239; 103 Stat. 
     2489).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1531

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Watershed and Flood 
 Preventions and earmark funds for financial and technical assistance 
           for pilot rehabilitation projects in Mississippi)

       On page 33, line 15 after the period, insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the funds available for 
     Emergency Watershed Protection activities, $5,000,000 shall 
     be available for Mississippi and Wisconsin for financial and 
     technical assistance for pilot rehabilitation projects of 
     small, upstream dams built under the Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Section 13 of the Act 
     of December 22, 1994) Public Law 78-534; 58 Stat. 905, and 
     the pilot watershed program authorized under the heading 
     `FLOOD PREVENTION' of the Department of Agriculture 
     Appropriation Act, 1954, (Public Law 156; 67 Stat 214)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1532

(Purpose: To increase the fee on guaranteed business and industry loans 
                  thereby reducing the subsidy costs)

       On page 41, line 6, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this paragraph shall be available unless the Department 
     of Agriculture proposes a revised regulation to allow leaders 
     to be charged a fee of up to 3% on guaranteed business and 
     industry loans''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1533

 (Purpose: To provide at least twenty five percent of the appropriated 
           funds to small minority farmers for cooperatives)

       On page 42, line 7, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided, That at least twenty-five percent of the total 
     amount appropriated shall be made available to cooperatives 
     or associations of cooperatives that assist small minority 
     producers''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1534

 (Purpose: To amend the National Drought Policy Act of 1998, to make a 
                         technical correction)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . Public Law 105-199 (112 Stat. 641) is amended in 
     section 3(b)(1)(G) by striking ``persons'', and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``governors, who may be represented on the 
     Commission by their respective designees,''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1535

(Purpose: To require the expenditure of appropriated funds for certain 
                        enforcement activities)

       On page 55, line 5, strike the semicolon and insert the 
     following: ``, of which $1,000,000 shall be for premarket 
     review, enforcement and oversight activities related to users 
     and manufacturers of all reprocessed medical devices as 
     authorized by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 321 et seq.), and of which no less than $55,500,000 
     and 522 full-time equivalent positions shall be for premarket 
     application review activities to meet statutory review 
     times;''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1536

  (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the United 
                  States Action Plan on Food Security)

       On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ACTION PLAN ON FOOD 
                   SECURITY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     include in the fiscal year 2001 budget request funding to 
     implement the United States Action Plan on Food Security.


[[Page S10202]]


  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Saturday, August 7 will mark the 
tenth anniversary of the death of Congressman Mickey Leland, who was an 
extraordinarily effective advocate for the hungry people here at home 
and throughout the world. In remembering his tireless work for the 
hungry, I think it is fitting to redouble our own efforts to fight 
hunger and malnutrition.
  The United States recently released its plan to reduce hunger. I am 
offering an amendment today to ask that the President include in his 
budget request next year specific proposals to implement the U.S. plan.
  In November 1996 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 
convened a World Food Summit in Rome. The goal of the conference was to 
``renew the commitment of world leaders at the highest level to the 
eradication of hunger and malnutrition and the achievement of food 
security for all, through the adoption of concerted policies and 
actions at global, regional, and national levels.'' Summit participants 
pledged to cut the number of undernourished people in half by 2015. 
Each participating country was to decide independently how it could 
contribute to the goal of food security for all.
  This March of this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published 
the U.S. government's plan to meet the goals of the 1996 World Food 
Summit, entitled U.S. Action Plan on Food Security, Solutions to 
Hunger. The plan outlines how the United States will fight hunger both 
at home and abroad. The plan is broad and involves a number of U.S. 
agencies and policies. It aims to reduce both U.S. and world hunger by 
addressing the ``policy environment,'' promoting trade and investment, 
strengthening food security research and educational capacity, 
integrating environmental concerns into food security efforts, 
improving the ``safety net,'' better identifying ``food insecure'' 
individuals and populations, and addressing food and water safety 
issues.
  The USDA report was issued after the President had already submitted 
his budget. Many of the recommendations in the report are policies 
already in place and so already addressed in the President's budget. 
The report has some specific recommendations, but many are broad 
principles that need to be fleshed out to lead to specific actions.
  I want to be sure that this report does not become one of the many 
government reports that leads nowhere, that fulfills the requirements 
of an international conference with lofty goals but little follow-
through.
  I am offering this amendment today, which simply says that it is the 
sense of the Senate that the President should include in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget request funding to implement this plan, to encourage 
the Administration to submit specific proposals and budget requests to 
follow through on our fight against hunger.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1537

 (Purpose: To require the Farm Service Agency to review programs that 
      provide assistance to apple farmers and report to Congress)

       On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__. Financial Hardships Facing Apple Farmers.--The 
     Farm Service Agency--
       (1) in view of the financial hardship facing United States 
     apple farmers as a result of a loss of markets and excessive 
     imports of apple juice concentrate, shall review all programs 
     that assist apple growers in time of need;
       (2) in view of the increased operating costs associated 
     with tree fruit production, shall review the limits currently 
     set on operating loan programs used by apple growers to 
     determine whether the current limits are insufficient to 
     cover those costs; and
       (3) shall report to Congress its findings not later than 
     January 1, 2000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1538

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for fruit fly exclusion and 
                       detection, with an offset)

       On page 18, line 12, strike ``$437,445,000'' and insert 
     ``$439,445,000''.
       On page 18, line 19, after the colon, insert the following 
     ``Provided further, That, of the amounts made available under 
     this heading, not less than $24,970,000 shall be used for 
     fruit fly exclusion and detection (including at least 
     $6,000,000 for fruit fly exclusion and detection in the state 
     of Florida):''.
       On page 20, line 16, strike $7,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,200,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1539

       On page 36 of S. 1233, line 3 after the word ``systems:'' 
     insert the following: ``Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be 
     available to the Grassroots project:''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1540

(Purpose: To provide funding for sustainable agriculture research and a 
research program on improved fruit practices in the State of Michigan, 
                            with an offset)

       On page 13, line 13, strike ``$54,476,000'' and insert 
     ``$54,951,000''.
       On page 13, line 16, strike ``$117,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$116,625,000''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the managers have accepted the 
amendment that I introduced adding funds for existing research programs 
under the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
(CSREES) to help identify and develop alternatives for pesticides that 
are currently necessary for fruit production and whose use is likely to 
be restricted under the Food Quality Protection Act. This research 
program has provided much needed support to Michigan's fruit producers, 
and I thank the managers for allowing it to continue. It is my 
understanding that the full amount of the cost of this program will 
come from the ``Markets, trade, and policy'' section of the CSREES 
research grants, which currently is undersubscribed. It is also my hope 
that the additional research funds that I sought for another ongoing 
CSREES research project to help farmers reduce their use of fertilizer 
and pesticide inputs can be secured in conference.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1541

       At the end of the bill insert:
       Sec.   . Section 889 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
     and Reform Act of 1996 is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``HARRY K. DUPREE'' before 
     ``STUTTGART'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``HARRY K. DUPREE'' before 
     ``STUTTGART''; and
       (B) in subparagraphs (A) and (B), by inserting ``Harry K. 
     Dupree'' before ``Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research 
     Center'' each place it appears.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1542

   (Purpose: To provide $300,000 for climate change research at the 
Florida Center for Climate Prediction at Florida State University, the 
   University of Florida and the University of Miami with an offset)

       On Page 13, Line 16, strike ``$116,625,000'' and insert 
     ``$116,325,000''.
       On Page 14, Line 19, strike ``$13,666,000'' and insert 
     ``$13,966,000''.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and I have offered 
on behalf of the Florida Center for Climate Prediction.
  The Center is a consortium between the University of Florida, Florida 
State University and the University of Miami to study climate 
variability in the Southeast region. The objective of this unique 
partnership is to explore the potential value and practical application 
for long-term climate data and science to the agricultural community in 
my state and throughout the Southeast.
  The consortium's purpose is to develop and evaluate a useful set of 
tools and methodologies for assessing the regional agricultural 
consequences of the El Nino/La Nina phenomenons and applying these 
forecasts to agricultural decision-making. This is a truly innovative 
project and I am pleased this partnership is making good progress on 
these important agricultural issues.
  Our amendment will provide $300,000 in funding for the Center in the 
Federal administration section of the Cooperative State Research and 
Education, and extension Service [CSREES]--Research and Education 
Activities section of the bill before us today. I appreciate the 
support my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee provided this 
important research initiative.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1543

(Purpose: To provide that certain cross-county leasing provisions apply 
     to Kentucky and to release and protect the release of tobacco 
                 production and marketing information)

       On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__. Tobacco Leasing and Information.--(a) Cross-
     County Leasing.--Section 319(l) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1314e(l)) is amended in the 
     second sentence by inserting ``, Kentucky,'' after 
     ``Tennessee''.
       (b) Tobacco Production and Marketing Information.--Part I 
     of subtitle B of title III

[[Page S10203]]

     of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 320D. TOBACCO PRODUCTION AND MARKETING INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may, subject to subsection (b), release 
     marketing information submitted by persons relating to the 
     production and marketing of tobacco to State trusts or 
     similar organizations engaged in the distribution of national 
     trust funds to tobacco producers and other persons with 
     interests associated with the production of tobacco, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Information may be released under 
     subsection (a) only to the extent that--
       ``(A) the release is in the interest of tobacco producers, 
     as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) the information is released to a State trust or other 
     organization that is created to, or charged with, 
     distributing funds to tobacco producers or other parties with 
     an interest in tobacco production or tobacco farms under a 
     national or State trust or settlement.
       ``(2) Exemption from release.--The Secretary shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, in advance of making a release of 
     information under subsection (a), allow, by announcement, a 
     period of at least 15 days for persons whose consent would 
     otherwise be required by law to effectuate the release, to 
     elect to be exempt from the release.
       ``(c) Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--In making a release under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary may provide such other assistance with 
     respect to information released under subsection (a) as will 
     facilitate the interest of producers in receiving the funds 
     that are the subject of a trust described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Funds.--The Secretary shall use amounts made 
     available for salaries and expenses of the Department to 
     carry out paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Records.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person that obtains information 
     described in subsection (a) shall maintain records that are 
     consistent with the purposes of the release and shall not use 
     the records for any purpose not authorized under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person that knowingly violates this 
     subsection shall be fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned 
     not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(e) Application.--This section shall not apply to--
       ``(1) records submitted by cigarette manufacturers with 
     respect to the production of cigarettes;
       ``(2) records that were submitted as expected purchase 
     intentions in connection with the establishment of national 
     tobacco quotas; or
       ``(3) records that aggregate the purchases of particular 
     buyers.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1544

              (Purpose: To modify Section 739 of the bill)

       On page 70, strike lines 3 through 10, and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``Sec. 739. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to declare excess or 
     surplus all or part of the lands and facilities owned by the 
     federal government and administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture at Fort Reno, Oklahoma, or to transfer or convey 
     such lands or facilities, without the specific authorization 
     of Congress.''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment no. 1545

   (Purpose: To appropriate $500,000 for the Nevada Arid Rangelands 
   Initiative to develop research and educational programs to manage 
 healthy and productive rangelands, provide abundant renewable natural 
resources, and support the economic development of the rangelands in a 
                          sustainable manner)

       On page 13, line 16, strike the figure ``$116,325,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof the figure ``$115,825,000'' and on 
     page 13, line 13, strike the figure ``$54,951,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof the figure ``$55,451,000''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to seek amendment to the 
allocation for special grants for agricultural research under the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Research 
and Education Activities. I respectfully request that $500,000 be added 
to this activity to fund the Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative at the 
University of Nevada, Reno. This program is critical to Nevada, which 
has a higher percentage of its lands classified as arid rangeland than 
any other state in the union.
  The mission of the Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative is to develop 
research, management, and educational programs to promote healthy and 
productive rangelands and to support economic development of these 
rangelands in a sustainable manner. Healthy, productive rangelands are 
critical to the support of many rural families and communities and 
important to Nevada's quality of life.
  The rangelands of Nevada are at risk from many factors including 
competing demands for water, loss of scarce riparian vegetation, 
invasive weeds, and wildfire. The Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative 
will seek to develop innovative strategies for such items as simplified 
methods to assess rangeland health, the development of watershed 
grazing strategies, control of invasive weeds and the use of vegetative 
management strategies to control wildfire.
  This money should be included in the following account: ``Competitive 
Research Grants, Natural Resources and the Environment.''
                                  ____



                           amendment No. 1546

       On page 13, line 13, increase the dollar amount by 
     $750,000; and
       On page 13, line 16, decrease the dollar amount by 
     $750,000.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Mississippi, 
the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations committee, for his 
leadership on this bill and for his accepting this amendment.
  This amendment reduces funding from the National Research Initiative 
Competitive Grants Program (NRI) on Nutrition, Food Quality and Health 
in order to target $750,000 for the continuation of Next Generation 
Detection and Information Systems for food pathogens and toxins at 
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.


                           amendment no. 1547

 (Purpose: To promote eligibility to Berlin, New Hampshire for a rural 
 utilities grant or loan under the Rural Community Advancement Program)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       ``Sec.   . That notwithstanding section 306(a)(7) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926 
     (a)(7)), the city of Berlin, New Hampshire, shall be eligible 
     during fiscal year 2000 for a rural utilities grant or loan 
     under the Rural Community Advancement Program.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1548

  (Purpose: To authorize the Cranberry Marketing Committee to conduct 
    paid advertising for cranberries and cranberry products and to 
  authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Committee to collect 
                       cranberry inventory data)

       On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__. Cranberry Marketing Orders.--(a) Paid Advertising 
     for Cranberries and Cranberry Products.--Section 8c(6)(I) of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(6)(I)), 
     reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
     Agreement Act of 1937, is amended in the first proviso--
       (1) by striking ``or Florida grown strawberries'' and 
     inserting ``, Florida grown strawberries, or cranberries''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``and Florida Indian River grapefruit'' and 
     inserting ``Florida Indian River grapefruit, and 
     cranberries''.
       (b) Collection of Cranberry Inventory Data.--Section 8d of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608d), reenacted 
     with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
     of 1937, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Collection of cranberry inventory data.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an order is in effect with respect to 
     cranberries, the Secretary of Agriculture may require persons 
     engaged in the handling or importation of cranberries or 
     cranberry products (including producer-handlers, second 
     handlers, processors, brokers, and importers) to provide such 
     information as the Secretary considers necessary to 
     effectuate the declared policy of this title, including 
     information on acquisitions, inventories, and dispositions of 
     cranberries and cranberry products.
       ``(B) Delegation to committee.--The Secretary may delegate 
     the authority to carry out subparagraph (A) to any committee 
     that is responsible for administering an order covering 
     cranberries.
       ``(C) Confidentiality.--Paragraph (2) shall apply to 
     information provided under this paragraph.
       ``(D) Violations.--Any person that violates this paragraph 
     shall be subject to the penalties provided under section 
     8c(14).''.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this amendment, cosponsored by my 
colleague from Oregon and others from cranberry producing states, 
amends the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, giving 
cranberry producers the tools they need to meet the challenges of a 
rapidly changing marketplace. Cranberry growers in my state produce a 
fruit that is an important portion of our state's agriculture economy. 
Despite their economic significance, cranberry marshes or bogs are 
often small and multi-generational family farms. In fact, it is not 
uncommon to find a grower who is a third, or fourth generation farmer, 
working the same ten-acre

[[Page S10204]]

bog that is or her grandparents or great-grandparents worked in the 
twenties or thirties. They have a strong tradition of independence and 
stewardship and have been marvels of ingenuity and productivity for a 
long time.
  However, today they are suffering. Prices are down by forty to sixty 
percent over the levels of only a year ago. In some cases the cost of 
production exceeds the current value of the harvest crop. While 
cranberry growers tend to be resilient, many are having difficulties 
dealing with these extreme market conditions.
  Our amendment will not solve all of the problems this industry faces 
in the near-term, but we believe it will help the industry in the long-
term. It does not provide any money or increase the regulatory controls 
on industry. However, the amendment before us today addresses the 
problems in the cranberry industry in two ways:
  First, our amendment would expand the information-gathering authority 
of the Cranberry Marketing Committee beyond the traditional production 
states outlined in the original Cranberry Marketing Order. When the 
order was first conceived, cranberries were largely used only as fresh 
fruit for the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. As I am sure many of 
my colleagues are aware, decades of innovation and creative marketing 
by the cranberry industry has led to a tremendous expansion of this 
commodity--mainly through its use in juices and other products that are 
consumed year-round. Unfortunately, the commodity reporting mechanisms 
provided under the current Cranberry Marketing Order have not kept up 
with the growth and evolution of the industry. Today, vast amounts of 
cranberry supplies are imported and processed outside of production 
states that are subject to the Cranberry Marketing Order. This 
handicaps our cranberry growers, who are unable to obtain accurate 
information about the available supply, and therefore cannot make the 
optimum planting decisions. Our legislation would correct this by 
expanding the Cranberry marketing Committee authority, ultimately 
enabling growers to make better production decisions.
  A second component of our amendment would add cranberries to the list 
of commodities eligible to use funds raised from domestic procedures 
for overseas advertising as part of a generic marketing promotion 
program. Like all other agriculture producers, cranberry growers know 
the ability to effectively market products in the global marketplace is 
critical to maintaining growth and increasing price stability. Although 
it is my understanding that the Cranberry Marketing Committee does not 
currently plan to initiate such a campaign at this time, our 
legislation gives them the flexibility to do so.
  Much has been said in recent months on this floor about the plight of 
agriculture and an ongoing farm crisis brought about by record low 
commodity prices. This problem is real and cranberry producers in small 
Oregon coastal towns like Bandon and Coos Bay have felt it as well. I 
would like to urge the Secretary of Agriculture to get directly 
involved with the leadership of the industry to try and find meaningful 
initiatives that can help them weather this difficult time and ensure a 
healthy industry for a healthy product.
  Mr. President, cranberry growers know global competition will become 
increasingly fierce in the next century, yet they also know that their 
future prosperity will be built upon effective marketing and production 
innovation--not expensive safety nets or reactive trade barriers. I 
thank my colleagues for joining me in support of this amendment to give 
cranberry growers in my state and throughout the nation the freedom to 
address the current farm crisis and pro-actively meet the challenges of 
the new century.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1549

  (Purpose: To authorize Alaska Native tribes for payment of certain 
            administrative costs for the Food Stamp Program)

       On page 76, line 6, please add the following:
       ``Beginning in fiscal year 2001 and thereafter:
       ``Sec.   . The Food Stamp Act (P.L. 95-113, section 16(a)) 
     is amended by inserting after the phrase `Indian reservation 
     under section 11(d) of this Act' the following new phrase: 
     `or in a Native village within the State of Alaska identified 
     in section 11(b) of Public Law 92-203, as amended.'.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1550

    (Purpose: To amend S. 1233 to require the Secretary review food 
  packages periodically and consider including other nutritious foods 
    under the food package program for Women, Children and Infants)

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . It is the Sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall periodically review the Food Packages 
     listed at 7 CFR 246.10(c) (1996) and consider including 
     additional nutritious foods for women, infants and 
     children.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief statement 
concerning my amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill regarding the Women, Infants, and Children 
nutrition program. My reading of the regulations implementing this 
program indicate that they provide women and their children with a very 
limited range of food options. For example, the only non-dried 
vegetable they may chose from is carrots. They may eat canned carrots, 
raw carrots, and frozen carrots, but no other non-dried vegetable is 
permitted. Likewise the only meat or fish they allow is tuna. Salmon, 
the most heart-healthy protein source available, is essentially banned 
along with beef, poultry, pork, and other protein sources.
  My amendment directs the Secretary to review the WIC food packages 
currently available to pregnant and lactating women and their children 
and consider adding new, but nutritious foods to the list. It is 
ridiculous to expect children to eat foods from such a limited list. 
Anyone with a picky toddler knows that a varied diet is critical to 
developing healthy eating habits.
  Several years ago there was a controversy concerning Congress 
deciding which foods should be included in the WIC package, 
substituting its judgment for that of nutrition experts at USDA. This 
amendment does not mandate that salmon or any other food be included on 
the list. It gives complete and full discretion to the Secretary to 
determine which foods should be included. It simply directs him to 
periodically update the list.
  I have worked for years with Dr. William Castelli at the Framington 
Heart Study in Massachusetts and know firsthand the health benefits of 
salmon. The omega 3 oils within salmon actually reduce cholesterol 
levels, I eat salmon at least twice a week. I am confident that salmon 
will meet any standard that USDA applies without any additional help 
from me. When the nutrition experts see what a wonderful protein source 
salmon is, they will wonder why they didn't put it on the list in the 
first place.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1551

 (Purpose: To amend S. 1233 to provide for education grants to Alaska 
 Native serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions)

       Amend Title VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS by inserting a new 
     section as follows:

     ``SEC.  . EDUCATION GRANTS TO ALASKA NATIVE SERVING 
                   INSTITUTIONS AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN SERVING 
                   INSTITUTIONS.

       ``(a) Education Grants Program for Alaska Native Serving 
     Institutions.--(1) Grant authority.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may make competitive grants (or grants without 
     regard to any requirement for competition) to Alaska Native 
     serving institutions for the purpose of promoting and 
     stengthening the ability of Alaska Native serving instituions 
     to carry out education, applied research, and related 
     community development programs.
       (2) Use of grant funds. Grants made under this section 
     shall be used--
       (A) to support the activities of consortia of Alaska Native 
     serving institutions to enhance education equity for under 
     represented students:
       (B) to strengthen institutional educational capacities, 
     including libraries, curriculum, faculty, scientific 
     instrumentation, instruction delivery systems, and student 
     recruitment and retention, in order to respond to identified 
     State, regional, national, or international educational needs 
     in the food and agriculture sciences:
       (C) to attract and support undergraduate and graduate 
     students from under represented groups in order to prepare 
     them for careers related to the food, agricultural, and 
     natural resource systems of the United States, beginning with 
     the mentoring of students at the high school level including 
     by village elders and continuing with the provision of 
     financial support for students through their attainment of a 
     doctoral degree; and
       (D) to facilitate cooperative initiatives between two or 
     more Alaska Native serving institutions, or between Alaska 
     Native serving institutions and units of State government or 
     the private sector, to maximize the development and use of 
     resources, such as faculty,

[[Page S10205]]

     facilities, and equipment, to improve food and agricultural 
     sciences teaching programs.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations. There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to make grants under this subsection 
     $10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 through 2006.
       ``(b) Education Grants Program for Native Hawaiian Serving 
     Institutions.--(1) Grant authority.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture may make competitive grants (or grants without 
     regard to any requirement for competition) to Native Hawaiian 
     serving institutions for the purpose of promoting and 
     strengthening the ability of Native Hawaiian serving 
     institutions to carry our education, applied research, and 
     related community development programs.
       (2) Use of grant funds. Grants made under this section 
     shall be used--
       (A) to support the activities of consortia of Native 
     Hawaiian serving institutions to enhance educational equity 
     for under represented students:
       (B) to strengthen institutional educational capacities, 
     including libraries, curriculum, faculty, scientific 
     instrumentation, instruction deliver systems, and student 
     recruitment and retention, in order to respond to identified 
     State, regional, national, or international educational needs 
     in the food and agriculture sciences:
       (C) to attract and support undergraduate and graduate 
     students from under represented groups in order to prepare 
     them for careers related to the food, agricultural, and 
     natural resources systems of the United States, beginning 
     with the mentoring of students at the high school level and 
     continuing with the provision of financial support for 
     students through their attainment of a doctoral degree; and
       (D) to facilitate cooperative initiatives between two or 
     more Native Hawaiian serving institutions, or between Native 
     Hawaiian serving institutions and units of State government 
     or the private sector, to maximize the development and use of 
     resources, such as a faculty, facilities, and equipment, to 
     improve food and agricultural sciences teaching programs.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations. There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to make grants under this subsection 
     $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2006.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1552

  (Purpose: To amend S. 1233 to provide a minimum allocation of Smith 
Lever Act funds to States subject to a special statutory cost of living 
                              adjustment)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC.  . SMITH-LEVER ACT ALLOCATIONS IN STATES WITH 
                   CONGRESSIONALLY-AUTHORIZED COST OF LIVING 
                   ADJUSTMENTS.

       ``Beginning in fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, a state in 
     which federal employees receive a special allowance because 
     of the high cost of living or conditions of environment which 
     differ substantially from conditions in other parts of the 
     country as provided under section 1 of title IV of Public Law 
     102-141 (105 Stat. 861) shall receive an allotment of no less 
     than $2,000,000 under the Smith Lever Act of 1914, as amended 
     (7 U.S.C. 343).''
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1553

(Purpose: To amend S. 1233 to provide a minimum allocation of Hatch Act 
     funds to States subject to a special statutory cost of living 
                              adjustment)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC.  . HATCH ACT ALLOCATIONS IN STATES WITH 
                   CONGRESSIONALLY-AUTHORIZED COST OF LIVING 
                   ADJUSTMENTS.

       ``Beginning in fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, a state in 
     which federal employees receive a special allowance because 
     of the high cost of living or conditions of environment which 
     differ substantially from conditions in other parts of the 
     country as provided under section 1 of title IV of Public Law 
     102-141 (105 Stat. 861) shall receive an allotment of no less 
     than $2,000,000 under 7 U.S.C. 361c(c).''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1554

(Purpose: To set aside certain funds for programs and activities of the 
 Livestock Marketing Information Center in Lakewood, Colorado, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 13, line 16, strike ``$115,075,000'' and insert 
     ``$114,825,000''.
       On page 14, line 19, strike ``$13,966,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,216,000''.
       On page 14, line 22, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``, of which not less than $250,000 shall be 
     provided to carry out market analysis programs at the 
     Livestock Marketing Information Center in Lakewood, 
     Colorado''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1555

   (Purpose: To require the use of certain funds transferred to the 
Economic Research Service to conduct a study of reasons for the decline 
   in participation in the food stamp program and any problems that 
 households with eligible children have experienced in obtaining food 
                                stamps)

       On page 9, line 9, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,000''.
       On page 9, line 12, after ``tions:'', insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That not more than $500,000 of the 
     amount transferred under the preceding proviso shall be 
     available to conduct, not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, a study based on all available 
     administrative data and onsite inspections conducted by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture of local food stamp offices in each 
     State, of (1) reasons for the decline in participation in the 
     food stamp program, and (2) any problems that households with 
     eligible children have experienced in obtaining food stamps, 
     and to report the results of the study to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate:''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1556

       On page 13, line 19, strike ``$56,201,000'' and insert 
     ``56,401,000''.
       On page 13, on line 13 strike ``$114,825,000'' and insert 
     ``114,625,000''.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on my amendment that 
would provide $200,000 in funding under the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) to a research project in 
North Carolina to improve early detection of crop diseases. This 
funding boost is accomplished through an offset in NRI.
  This funding would go to North Carolina State which will work in 
conjunction with the University of North Carolina at Greensboro to 
create an innovative early warning system for crop failure.
  Mr. President, more than 30% of crop failures could be prevented if 
farmers had an early warning of disease or insect damage. However, by 
the time most diseases and insect infestations are visible to the naked 
eye, they are too far advanced for effective treatment.
  The University of North Carolina at Greensboro has been conducting a 
series of experiments that would introduce a color-change gene into 
crops such as soybeans and cranberries. These crops could be 
genetically engineered to change color when under stress, insect attack 
or diseased. A farmer could then shine a black light on the leaves and 
see the damage long before it is visible to the naked eye. Armed with 
this early warning, he could begin dealing with the problem long before 
it becomes fatal to the crop.
  This is an important project to support. The research will help bring 
crop management into the 21st century and could help farmers avert 
needless disasters. And it could yield enormous benefits soon.


                           amendment no. 1557

  (Purpose: To ensure timely testing of imports under the President's 
                        Food Safety Initiative)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec.  . It is the sense of the Senate that the Food and 
     Drug Administration, to the maximum extent possible, when 
     conducting Food Safety Initiative, ensure timely testing of 
     produce imports by conducting survey tests at the USDA or FDA 
     laboratory closest to the port of entry if testing result are 
     not provided within twenty-four hours of collection.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1558

 (Purpose: To provide that the price of milk received by producers in 
    Clark County, Nevada, shall not be subject to any Federal milk 
marketing order or any other regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture 
  and shall solely be regulated by the State of Nevada and the Nevada 
                        State Dairy Commission)

       On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__. Deregulation of Producer Milk Prices in Clark 
     County, Nevada.--Effective October 1, 1999, section 8c(11) of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(11)), 
     reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
     Agreement Act of 1937, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) Producer milk prices in clark county, nevada.--The 
     price of milk received by producers located in Clark County, 
     Nevada--
       ``(i) shall not be subject to any order issued under this 
     section or any other regulation by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) shall solely be regulated by the State of Nevada and 
     the Nevada State Dairy Commission.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1559

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning actions by the 
World Trade Organization relating to trade in agricultural commodities)

       On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec.  . The Senate finds that--
       (1) agricultural producers in the United States compete 
     effectively when world markets are not distorted by 
     government intervention;

[[Page S10206]]

       (2) the elimination of barriers to competition in world 
     markets for agricultural commodities is in the interest of 
     producers and consumers in the United States;
       (3) the United States must provide leadership on the 
     opening of the agricultural markets in upcoming multilateral 
     World Trade Organization negotiations;
       (4) countries that import agricultural commodities are more 
     likely to liberalize practices if they are confident that 
     their trading partners will not curtail the availability of 
     agricultural commodities on world markets for foreign policy 
     purposes; and
       (5) a multilateral commitment to use the open market, 
     rather than government intervention, to guarantee food 
     security would advance the interests of the farm community of 
     the United States.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that members of the World 
     Trade Organization should undertake multilateral negotiations 
     to eliminate policies and programs that distort world markets 
     for agricultural commodities.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1560

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding to existing research programs)

       On page 13, line 13, strike ``56,401,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``56,901,000''.
       On page 13, line 16, strike ``114,625,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``114,125,000''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the amendment I introduce will increase the 
University of Wisconsin's Babcock Institute's Special Research Grant to 
$800,000, with $300,000 being appropriated from the Cooperative State 
Research, Education and Extension Service's (CSREES) Competitive 
Research Grant Market, Trade and Policy account.
  This amendment will also increase funding for the University's Food 
System Research Group Special Research Grant to $700,000, with $200,000 
appropriated from the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service's (CSREES) Competitive Research Grant Nutrition, Food 
Quality and Health account.


                           amendment no. 1561

(Purpose: To provide an additional $2,000,000 for the Grain Inspection, 
    Packers and Stockyards Administration, offset from the Economic 
                           Research Service)

       Amend page 22, line 26 by increasing the dollar figure by 
     $2,000,000.
       Amend page 9, line 8 by reducing the dollar figure by 
     $2,000,000.
       Amend page 9, line 15 by striking the line and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following: ``2225); Provided further, That 
     university research shall be reduced below the fiscal year 
     1999 level by $2,000,000.''

                            GIPSA amendment

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
Senators Daschle, Wellstone, and myself to provide an additional $2 
million for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, known as GIPSA. This agency performs a critical role in 
ensuring open markets and fair trade practices for the livestock 
market. These are issues of great concern to livestock producers, 
especially in recent years as low prices have raised questions about 
decreasing competition, inadequate price information and possible 
abuses of market power.
  The Packers and Stockyards Program at GIPSA already has large demands 
placed on its investigative, analytical and legal resources. Congress 
and others are putting pressure on GIPSA to conduct more and more 
sophisticated investigations under significant time pressure.
  One of the strongest needs is for rapid response teams which are sent 
out to specific areas where serious complaints are occurring to quickly 
determine what is happening and to quickly resolve the problems that 
are occurring so farmers can get real relief in a timely manner.
  GIPSA continues to oversee contracting practices, which are the 
subject of increasing concern, scrutiny and debate.
  In an ever-faster paced market, GIPSA must have the resources to meet 
its responsibilities. These additional funds are essential to ensuring 
that the nation's livestock markets remain fair and open to all 
producers.
  The amendment is paid for by reducing the funding for the Economic 
Research Service. The reduction will be from academic research 
contracted out by that agency.


                        chile as specialty crop

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to address the 
distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee on 
an issue associated with the emergency agriculture disaster aid 
package.
  The amendment adopted by the Senate to provide emergency agriculture 
disaster aid includes a provision to assist the producers of specialty 
crops. May I enquire of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi if 
chile crops in New Mexico would be eligible for emergency aid under the 
specialty crop provision?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I respond to my friend from New Mexico that he has 
requested the assistance of the appropriations subcommittee in 
addressing the serious situation of New Mexico's chile farmers, and it 
is the intention of the subcommittee that the chile crop would be 
eligible for assistance under the specialty crop provision of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman for 
clarifying his understanding and mine that New Mexico's chile producers 
would be eligible for assistance through the specialty crop provisions 
of the pending Agriculture appropriations bill.
  I appreciate his assistance on this important matter.


                  cold war aquaculture research center

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi is aware, at the present time, the United States has no 
capability for the culture of cold-water, marine finfish, and the 
industry continues to need a consistent supply of high quality eggs or 
juvenile organisms. At the same time, I am especially aware as Chair of 
the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, that many important wild fish 
stocks in the United States, including the Gulf of Maine, as well as 
around the world, are suffering from overharvesting. This has the 
potential to greatly diminish the food supply of many nations whose 
greatest source of protein is from the fish they catch. The opportunity 
for cold water aquaculture research is immense and the rewards great 
for U.S. salmon farming in particular, which is a strategic industry in 
my State of Maine, especially in the rural area of Downeast Maine.
  It is important for the committee to know that representatives of the 
Maine Atlantic salmon industry and the University of Maine have been 
working with USDA's Agricultural Research Service and have defined the 
need to study the feasibility of a research center concept, program 
criteria and site criteria, site identification and evaluation. Once 
this has been completed, I hope we can look forward to the committee's 
future consideration for establishing a cold-water, marine aquaculture 
research center in an appropriate State such as Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there is no question that cold-water 
marine aquaculture holds enormous exciting potential that remains 
untapped by the Federal Government. Despite its cryptic name, cold-
water marine aquaculture is the lifeblood of a very tangible important 
industry. Each year millions of Atlantic salmon are raised in the cold 
quick-moving coastal water off the coast of Downeast Maine. The strong 
tides and rocky coast combined with many sheltering islands provide the 
perfect environment for a commercially viable finfish aquaculture 
industry. My discussions with the Agricultural Resources Service, 
experienced aquaculturalists, and researchers at the University of 
Maine have confirmed that the coast of Maine would, indeed, be an 
excellent location for Federal research into marine aquaculture.
  I understand that language included in the Agricultural 
appropriations bill requires ARS to study all of its current 
aquacultural activities. Is it the chairman's understanding that the 
study referenced in this bill will focus on, among other things, the 
feasibility of marine cold-water research program?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand that my colleagues from Maine have a deep 
interest in furthering cold-water aquaculture research on marine 
species, especially since cold water aquaculture is an important 
industry in their State. In marking up the FY2000 appropriations, the 
committee considered the need for the Agricultural Research Service to 
update warmwater aquaculture research activities and in our report 
language, directed the ARS to submit to the committee by January 31, 
2000, a report that will not only update warmwater aquaculture research

[[Page S10207]]

activities but also to include all aquaculture research currently being 
conducted by the agency. The report language also requires the agency 
to address the agency's current capacity and requirements for 
additional resources to meet future needs and issues confronting the 
Nation's aquaculture farmers, including opportunities in rural America. 
I agree that cold water aquaculture research needs are included in the 
overall mandate of the report language. I also believe the ARS report 
will be helpful in establishing the need for coldwater aquaculture 
research for marine species.
  Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the further clarification and would like to 
ask one additional question if I may. Could the study called for in the 
report address the feasibility and desirability of establishing a cold-
water aquaculture research program in the State of Maine?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, that will be added to the report mandate.
  Ms. COLLINS. My colleague and friend from Mississippi is clearly 
dedicated to the well-being of rural citizens from across the Nation. I 
thank him for his clarification of this matter of great importance to 
rural, coastal Maine and look forward to enacting this important 
legislation.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank my colleague from Mississippi not only for 
recognizing the importance of cold water aquaculture research for 
marine species but also for his continued fine work as Chair of the 
Senate agricultural appropriations process where he continues to be a 
strong advocate for numerous facets of agricultural research throughout 
the country.


                        human nutrition research

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Chairman for his 
longstanding support of agricultural research and, more specifically, 
of the human nutrition research programs of the Agricultural Research 
Service.
  Emphasis in human nutrition research at the USDA is designed to 
maintain a healthy populace and avoid the problems and substantial 
costs of diseases linked to poor dietary choices. Many diseases such as 
diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, cataracts, and others, could be nearly 
eliminated with improved nutrition research and education.
  The President's budget requested $20.25 million for the Human 
Nutrition Initiative, but because of significant constraints resulting 
from the allocation, the bill provides only $1.5 million. Of the $53 
million originally requested for the program, $48.5 million is still 
needed.
  These funds would reconcile production agriculture, which provides 
America the most abundant and safest food supply in the world, with 
consumer demands for a wholesome diet to enhance health, reduce 
illness, and improve the quality of life.
  Does the Chairman agree that because of the critical nature of 
funding for the program the Human Nutrition Initiative is a subject 
that should be evaluated in greater detail during conference on this 
bill?
  Mr. KOHL. I concur in my colleague's comments that funding for this 
program should be an item of discussion and greater support during 
conference with the House on this bill, and will work with him to that 
end.


                      gmo access in southeast asia

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I and the several members of this 
Subcommittee have spent a considerable amount of time working to ensure 
that other nations do not unfairly discriminate against genetically 
modified crops grown by American farmers. These crops hold great 
promise for eliminating hunger in the developing nations of the world. 
In addition, advances in biotechnology will lead to a reduction in the 
use of pesticides, improvements in soil quality and many GMO 
(Genetically Modified Organisms) crops have documented health benefits. 
It would truly be a disaster for the people of those nations--as well 
as for farm families in this country--if the benefits of these products 
are lost because of unsound science or straight up protectionism.
  We are all aware of the problems that we face in opening markets for 
these products in Europe and many of my colleagues are aware that we 
face new labeling requirements in Japan. What many of my colleagues may 
not realize is that the same groups that are fighting these products in 
Europe are funding similar efforts to stop the introduction and 
consumption of GMO products in developing countries around the world--
some of the very countries that stand to benefit the most from these 
products. The opponents are now turning their attention to a key U.S. 
market--Southeast Asia. This area of the world is home to a half 
billion consumers and the income levels are well above those in 
countries such as India or China. Unfortunately, the GMO opponents are 
busy at work to keep us from competing fairly in the markets of 
Southeast Asia.
  In Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and other countries in the 
region, American producers are facing a real threat of closed markets 
due to the efforts of non-governmental groups based mostly in Europe. 
This is a very important time in the region as a number of governments 
are studying how to and whether to regulate genetically modified 
organisms. As governments are reviewing the issues, it would be a 
tremendous mistake to allow the GMO opponents to go unanswered. As a 
government, we should be making every effort to assist our farmers and 
producers in educating government officials in these countries as to 
the sound scientific reviews that have been conducted on these products 
and the extensive regulatory approval process that the products are 
subjected to in the United States. Unfortunately, it appears that our 
federal government resources are completely tied up in fighting what 
some consider to be more pressing battles around the globe.
  My staff and I have been in contact with the Administrator of the 
Foreign Agriculture Service, Tim Galvin, several times in the past few 
months urging him to dedicate a relatively modest amount of funding--
$80,000--for the FAS to take internationally-respected scientists to 
countries throughout Southeast Asia so that they may meet with 
government officials and scientists who are working to address the GMO 
regulation issue. It is essential that we move forward with such 
education efforts to counter the rhetoric and the scare tactics of the 
NGOs. Several of the countries in this region are proceeding towards 
implementing regulatory schemes; if we do not take affirmative action 
on this front we stand to lose valuable markets. Despite the critical 
need for moving forward with such a program now, I have been unable to 
get Mr. Galvin to agree to this important program.
  I also understand that there is a plan to eliminate the regional FAS 
position in Singapore, which is dedicated to working for biotechnology 
acceptance throughout Southeast Asia. Such a move would be a terrible 
mistake. Singapore is in many ways the gateway to the ASEAN region--
which will overtake Japan as the second largest market for U.S. 
products and services by the year 2005. The Agricultural Trade Office's 
work with the ASEAN Secretariat towards establishing an ASEAN regional 
trade regime based on sound science and its work with the Singapore 
regional traders must continue if U.S. agriculture is successfully to 
realize this region's market potential. We should be focusing on 
improving and bolstering this office rather than eliminating it at a 
time when these countries are beginning to work on these important 
issues.
  I know that the chairman of the Subcommittee shares my concern about 
these issues. I urge him to join me in calling on Mr. Galvin and other 
officials at USDA to move to address the need for the U.S. to become 
engaged on this issue in Southeast Asia and to fund these important 
programs.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his comments and I assure him 
that I share his concern that we must fight to ensure that our 
commodities are not unfairly discriminated against in markets around 
the world. We cannot allow our soybean farmers, cotton farmers, corn 
farmers and others to have their exports put at risk by unfair 
regulation. We cannot cede any markets to GMO opponents. I share his 
desire to see USDA put the necessary resources into ensuring our 
interests are adequately represented as the nations of Southeast Asia 
consider regulation. I assure him that I will look into the status of 
these activities and seek to have them adequately funded.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for his remarks, and I look forward to 
working with him to address this issue.

[[Page S10208]]

                       animal welfare enforcement

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
make a few points about the increase included in this bill for 
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and certain language which 
appears in the Senate Report to accompany the appropriations bill now 
before the Senate.
  Under the Animal Welfare Act, the Secretary of Agriculture is 
authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the 
humane handling, housing, care, treatment, and transportation of 
certain animals by dealers and other regulated businesses. The 
Secretary has delegated the authority for enforcing this Act to the 
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
whose budget is included in the pending appropriations bill.
  For a number of years, the appropriated level for APHIS's enforcement 
activities of the Animal Welfare Act has held stagnant in the area of 
$9 million annually. The level of funding has allowed for employment of 
approximately 69 field inspectors to monitor activities in all fifty 
states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. 
Obviously, this number of inspectors, responsible for such a vast 
geographical area, is totally insufficient to investigate and control 
all inappropriate and illegal mistreatment of animals where it occurs 
within the regulated community. For many people, their pets are 
essentially members of their families and too often we learn of 
tragedies that occur during commercial transportation where pets are 
injured or killed. In other instances, we learn of inhumane treatment 
of animals in settings often referred to as ``puppy mills'' where 
conditions include disease, pests, poor feeding, and other forms of 
mistreatment that should and must be stopped.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for raising the issue 
of enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and for pointing out many of 
the terrible conditions for which this Act is designed to halt and 
efforts by USDA and this Congress to put an end to them. The Senator is 
correct that funding for this activity has remained constant over the 
past several years. The President included in his budget request for 
fiscal year 2000 an increase of $515,000 for these activities.
  The President's request would provide additional funds for 
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, but only to maintain current 
activities such as inspections at regulated facilities to ensure 
compliance with the Act. In addition, inspectors would receive much 
needed training to ensure uniform enforcement of the regulations and to 
stay current with industry advancements in methodologies of research 
and caring for animals. APHIS would continue to replace outdated and 
old equipment including vehicles and continue modernizing its computer 
databases program. In view of the needs outlined in the budget request, 
and the overall problems outlined by the Senator from Wisconsin, this 
bill includes an increase of $2 million above last years level, nearly 
four times the amount of increase requested by the President.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his explanation of 
the activities included in the President's request for enforcement of 
the Animal Welfare Act and for the generous increase he was able to 
provide in this bill. I want to stress to all Senators that the 
increase in this bill is designed to allow better enforcement of 
currently regulated activities. I am aware that the President's budget 
explanation also included concern that pending litigation and 
potentially expanded jurisdiction for enforcement of the Animal Welfare 
Act would further strain the limited resources of the agency. It was, 
in part, for that reason that language is included in Senate Report to 
make clear that the increase in this bill is to improve ongoing 
activities of the agency and not for expansion of regulated activities.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KOHL. The Senate report language expresses our concern, as does 
the President's budget justification, that a strain on existing 
resources could potentially negate the efforts taken in our bill to 
increase the number of inspections at regulated facilities by 
inadvertently increasing the caseload of inspectors. I have heard from 
numerous animal care advocates in Wisconsin who have told me we need 
more inspectors to make sure the work now going undone is taken care 
of. For that reason, and not for expansion of authorities, the increase 
is included in this bill.
  However, I also want to note that while the language in the Senate 
report expressly limits the increased funding to currently authorized 
activities and also expresses our concern that expansion of agency 
programs at this time may strain resources past the breaking point, it 
is not intended to chill the efforts by advocacy groups to pursue their 
interests through either the rulemaking process or through the courts. 
It is not our intention for the Senate report language to sway, in one 
way or the other, upcoming decisions of the courts or to infringe on 
the Department's proper exercise of rulemaking authority. For those who 
may read the report language and be concerned that we are stepping too 
far into the realm of agency or court activities, we may wish to 
consider some modifications to this language for purposes of inclusion 
in the statement of managers to accompany the conference report to this 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his concerns and I will work 
with him in the conference to consider whether modifications to this 
language are in order.


         greater yellowstone interagency brucellosis committee

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman 
Cochran and Senator Kohl for the hard work they have put into the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an 
excellent job balancing competing interests within the confines of a 
balanced budget.
  I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee regarding funding for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency 
Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC). There is currently a Cooperative State 
Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program to eliminate the brucellosis 
from the country. States are designated brucellosis free when none of 
their cattle or bison are found to be infected for 12 consecutive 
months. As of March 31, 1998, 42 States, plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, are free of brucellosis. The presence of brucellosis in 
free-ranging bison in Yellowstone National Park threatens the 
brucellosis status of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, as well as the 
health of their livestock herds, which are free of the disease. 
Reintroduction of the disease into a brucellosis-free State could have 
a serious economic impact on domestic livestock markets and potentially 
threaten export markets.
  The Committee saw fit to allocate $610,000 for the coordination of 
Federal, state and private actions aimed at eliminating brucellosis 
from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area. I would like to clarify 
how this money is to be allocated. Of the funds appropriated for the 
GYIBC, $400,000 is for the States of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana to 
participate in the GYIBC, with the understanding that 50 percent goes 
to the state that chairs the committee and 25 percent goes to each of 
the other states. The remaining $210,000 is for the State of Idaho to 
protect the State's brucellosis-free status and implement the Idaho 
Wildlife Brucellosis plan. Is it the intent of the Committee to use 
these funds as I have described?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, it is the intent of the Committee to use the 
allocated funds as the Senator from Idaho stated.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman.


                    aphis plant protection colloquy

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman 
Cochran and Senator Kohl for the hard work they have put into the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture, Rural Development, and related Agencies 
Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an 
excellent job balancing competing interests within the confines of a 
balanced budget.
  I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee regarding the appropriation for the 
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
plant protection programs and regulations.

[[Page S10209]]

The funds this bill makes available for plant protection are critical 
to protecting American agriculture from diseases, pests, and invasive 
plants. My own state of Idaho struggles greatly with noxious weeds, 
such as leafy spurge, which compete with the native grasses so 
essential for the raising of cattle.
  Researchers at the University of Idaho and around the country are 
working diligently to develop mechanisms to use biological controls for 
weeds and to manage diseases of important agriculture plants. It is my 
understanding that current APHIS regulations require a permit for 
interstate transfer of a pathogen or plant infected with a pathogen 
from one research location to another. However, research and education 
facilities routinely transfer plant materials from one research 
location to another using good management practices.
  To facilitate researchers' work on behalf of American agriculture, I 
ask that the Committee clarify its intent that the appropriations 
contained in this bill for the Department of Agriculture's Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service should be used to carry out plant 
protection programs and regulations that take into account the levels 
of risk presented by pathogens and to establish mechanisms to expedite 
or provide exemptions from any formal permit or certification processes 
for research and education facilities established under implementing 
regulations as the Secretary deems appropriate. Is it the intent of the 
Committee to use these funds as I have described?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, it is the intent of the Committee to use the 
allocated funds as the Senator from Idaho stated. Use of these 
appropriations for plant protection purposes will indeed benefit 
American agriculture, including producers in Mississippi.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is also the Committee's belief that the routine 
handling of a variety of pathogens by many research and education 
facilities, using good management practices, has occurred widely 
without their untoward release and establishment in the environment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes. The Secretary of Agriculture should take this into 
account when establishing any regulatory processes for the movement and 
handling of pathogens. The Secretary should establish, to the extent 
possible, processes under which the facilities and their management 
practices are reviewed periodically, rather than requiring case-by-case 
approval for each us of a pathogen regardless of risk.
  Mr. CRAIG. I understand from researchers in my state that pathogens 
that might be considered for exemption or expedited processes include: 
endemic and naturalized pathogens for which there is extensive 
information and handling experience and for which management strategies 
have been developed; pathogens intended for educational, research, or 
reference use that are not to be released into the environment; or 
pathogens that present low risk because of their mode of survival, 
dissemination, or some other aspect of their biology. Is that the 
Committee's understanding?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, the committee understands that certain types of 
pathogens present low risks and research education facilities should 
face minimal regulatory burden as deemed appropriate by the Secretary 
of Agriculture. The Committee would also urge APHIS to develop 
laboratory standards for facilities and management practices that will 
enable research and education facilities to handle higher-risk 
pathogens as well. These laboratory standards will help APHIS use its 
resources more efficiently and allow efficient use of research 
resources to combat plant diseases more effectively.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, is it the intent of the Committee that APHIS 
consult with relevant scientific societies as well as state regulators 
of plan pathogens and on-site reviewers of facilities where possible in 
modifying current regulations or developing future regulations 
regarding the movement of pathogens between research and education 
facilities?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, that is the Committee's intent.
  Mr. KOHL. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. In 
my home state of Wisconsin, a number of plant pathogens cause 
production losses for our producers. APHIS' implementation of plant 
protection programs using the appropriations in this bill, consistent 
with the Committee's intent, will assist researchers at many 
universities including the University of Wisconsin in their research 
efforts to combat plant disease and pests.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding the APHIS is moving in this 
direction already. APHIS recently requested that the National Plant 
Board review its Plant Protection and Quarantine program to make 
recommendations for changes and improvements in the framework for 
regulations. This review, which included representatives of 
universities and industry as well as the state regulators, resulted in 
recommendations that will soon be presented in a report called 
``Safeguarding American Plant Resources: A Review of APHIS' Plant 
Protection and Quarantine's Pest Safeguarding System.'' This report 
will also recommend risk-based management of plant permits, including 
development of mechanisms to exempt from permitting or expedite 
permitting in certain low-risk cases. Thank you for your continued 
interest in this matter.


        CLARIFICATIONS TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 106-80

  Mr. COCHRAN. I note for the record the following technical 
clarifications to the Senate committee report (Senate Report 106-80) on 
S. 1233, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2000:
  On page 96 of the report, the chart regarding the rural economic 
development loans program account should not footnote the Committee 
recommendation. The Committee's recommendation for the direct loan 
subsidy is not offset by a rescission from interest on the cushion of 
credit payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural 
Electrification Act of 1936.
  On page 133 of the report, Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger 
Fellowships should be added to the list of programs which currently 
lack authorization for fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this agriculture appropriations bill 
provides annual funding for our nation's farmers, producers and the 
agency supporting our agricultural industry, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. The chairman and his colleagues on the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee deserve much credit for their work on this 
bill, which ensures funding for fundamental programs to support 
agricultural, rural development and nutrition programs. Unfortunately, 
the process by which appropriators continue to add wasteful and 
unnecessary spending to this important funding measure is unacceptable.
  Each year, I am amazed by arbitrary fashion in which the 
appropriations committees choose to allocate the strict federal dollars 
that we should reserve for important and necessary federal programs. At 
the expense of our American taxpayers, this bill and its accompanying 
report are riddled with unrequested, low-priority earmarks, 
representing $170 million in additional spending.
  The agriculture appropriations bill is a haven for members to tack on 
unrequested and unauthorized funding for special interest projects, 
particularly in sections of the accompanying Senate report dealing with 
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. For 
example, 114 out of a total 118 projects funded under the section for 
special research grants are either unrequested or received additional 
funding above the budget request. Over 90 projects under the 
Agriculture Research Service were targeted for termination by the 
administration, yet a majority of these projects continue to receive 
funding in this bill.
  These actions lead me to ask a fundamental question. What is the 
purpose of conducting a formal budget process when the Appropriations 
Committee exhibits such carte blanche authority to fund projects which 
have not been considered in our established authorization and funding 
process? I review all of the annual appropriations bills, yet I have 
rarely seen such flagrant examples of egregious spending as those 
included in this bill.
  In the Senate report, the appropriations committee state their 
commitment to only fund priority projects,

[[Page S10210]]

yet earmarks are approved for such projects as $300,000 for cereal rust 
research in St. Paul, MN. No information is provided for members to 
determine what kind of project deals with ``cereal rust'' and why this 
project deserves a specific earmark of nearly a third of a million 
dollars.
  Other earmarks include $500,000 for swine waste management in North 
Carolina, $100,000 to reduce damages and manage populations of fish-
eating birds which prey on farm-raised cattle in the Mid-south area, 
and an increase of $452,000 to support the sterile fly release in San 
Joaquin Valley. It is incredible to me, and no doubt to the American 
people, that we speak of fiscal responsibility and budget constraints 
in one manner, and yet act in a diametrically opposite manner wasting 
enormous amounts of funding for projects that appear to have little 
relationship to improving the agricultural economy.
  Some projects may be meritorious, such as potato research and weed 
control, but are these problems specific only to certain states like 
Washington and North Dakota? Enough to receive not only an earmark, but 
an increase above the requested levels? I am certain that my 
constituents in Arizona can attest to the need for funding to monitor 
certain crops and deal with problems of weed control, yet they are 
unable to compete for funding to address these issues when decisions 
are based more on parochial interests rather than national priority.
  This bill goes beyond the traditional earmarking process by selecting 
particular sites across the country to receive additional spending for 
extra staff and personnel. Why are these facilities receiving direct 
funding for additional staff at a time when each agency is required to 
abide by the mandate of the Government Performance and Results Act to 
operate more efficiently with less bureaucracy? Even if these positions 
are critical, why are they not prioritized in the normal administrative 
process?
  In various parts of the bill and report, the committee includes 
express language which all but provides direct earmarks for certain 
projects and grantees and effectively intervenes in what is supposed to 
be a competitive grant process outside the realm of political 
influences. For example, in the Senate report, language is included 
which states the committee's expectation that the Administration give 
full consideration to an application for funds to construct a new 
facility for the St. Paul Island Health Clinic in Alaska and other 
language which urges the Administration to consider applications from 
the State of Alabama for projects benefitting Montgomery, State 
Farmer's Market and other farmers in the State.
  We are invested with the responsibility to fully consider and debate 
the appropriate expenditure of federal funds. I commend Senator 
Cochran, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture 
Appropriations, for his floor statement in which he stated that the 
committee sought to apply funding in a ``reasonable and thoughtful 
way.'' Unfortunately, the pork in this bill and report prove that the 
Appropriations Committee is still unable to curb its appetite for 
unnecessary and wasteful spending.
  I have compiled a list of objectionable provisions, totalling $170 
million, to S. 1233 and its accompanying Senate report, which, due to 
its length, cannot be printed in the Record. The list of objectionable 
provisions will be available on my Senate web page.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to indicate my strong support 
for two related research and technology initiatives in the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's FY2000 budget--initiatives that were in the 
President's request, but which have not received any increases in this 
budget being debated today. The USDA Global Change Research Program and 
the Climate Change Technology Initiative are two very important 
programs that deserve additional attention and funding. I recognize 
that this Congress is faced with many competing funding needs, 
particularly with the dire situation faced by much of the agriculture 
community today, but I submit also that we cannot ignore the needs of 
potential future disasters, especially when the means to avoiding such 
disaster will benefit U.S. farmers and U.S. agriculture while also 
benefiting the entire nation.
  I am referring to the potential effects of global climate change, and 
the potential for the agriculture sector to cost-effectively and 
efficiently help us to mitigate against increased concentrations of 
atmospheric greenhouse gases.
  Like many policymakers and many of my colleagues, I am convinced by 
the data international scientists have amassed that indicates climate 
change is a phenomenon to be dealt with in order to avoid calamitous 
effects. I agree with the assessment of the scientific community that 
we must insure against potentially devastating effects of climate 
change by taking action now. We are certain that greenhouse gas 
concentrations have been substantially increasing in the atmosphere, 
and as those concentrations have increased, global surface temperatures 
have risen. While we are not sure of the exact nature or extent of the 
resulting climatic and weather-related disruptions that may occur as 
the greenhouse effect is intensified, we do know that we should act 
now. Acting now will benefit the global climate, and the health of our 
citizens.
  A significant body of research indicates that there is great 
potential for U.S. agriculture--for cropland, rangeland, and 
pastureland, as well as for forests--to sequester carbon at 
particularly low costs to society. Scientists have shown that with 
selected management practices, agricultural soils can effectively 
absorb a large proportion of the annual increases in atmospheric CO2 
that are attributed to the greenhouse effect of global climate change.
  What this means for the U.S. is that we have a cheap, effective 
sink--a means to sequester a large amount of the carbon dioxide and 
other greenhouse gases that are being emitted from fossil fuel 
emissions. The sequestration of carbon in soils is a benefit to 
agriculture, in addition to society. Increased carbon in soils leads to 
reduced soil erosion, increased soil tilth and fertility, increased 
water absorption and retention, and most notably for agriculture, 
increased productivity. As noted recently by Dr. Rattan Lal, an 
international soil carbon research scientist--carbon is the basis for 
all life--including in agricultural soils. Carbon absorption by soils 
helps agriculture, and helps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
  While we understand a great deal about the means by which carbon is 
absorbed and retained in soils--for instance through minimal or no-till 
practices--there is still much that needs to be learned about the 
entire carbon cycle in nature, and how it moves from one pool, such as 
soils, to others, such as the atmosphere. We need to better understand 
the balance of land management and tillage techniques that sequester 
and retain carbon in soils, and to insure that agricultural policies 
are supportive of and encourage these activities. Additionally, 
research is needed to more accurately identify how carbon is lost from 
soils, either to the atmosphere or elsewhere--and to then identify how 
best to preserve and retain carbon in the soil sink.
  What we are looking at is a win-win-win situation--a win for society, 
a win for the climate, and a win for agriculture. But we must invest 
now in this future, not only because it will help us to bridge the gap, 
as we move in the direction of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels 
and practices that emit greenhouse gases, but it will help us to soften 
the blow on all other impacted sectors. Using agriculture as a carbon 
sink helps not only agriculture--it gives all other sectors breathing 
room to technologically or otherwise adapt to reduced fossil fuel 
dependence. It will help this country to reduce our greenhouse gas 
emissions sooner, cheaper, and without the disruptions to businesses 
and the economy that some sectors have forecast.
  Mr. President, that is why I want to voice my support for funding the 
USDA Carbon Cycle Research Program and the Climate Change Technology 
Initiative. Funding for these important programs is essential to 
optimize the potential for agriculture and for the climate. I urge that 
the Senate consider additional funding for these programs.
  Mr. President, I ask that my full statement be included in the record 
during the debate on the Agriculture Appropriations Bill.

[[Page S10211]]

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I'm proud to represent a state that 
produces a wide variety of the highest quality agricultural products, 
from dairy products to cranberries, ginseng, corn, wheat--the list goes 
on, and it is as varied as Wisconsin itself.
  Agriculture is the lifeblood of my state, so when a bill like 
Agriculture Appropriations comes to the floor, I feel it's vitally 
important that every aspect of the legislation--including the interests 
attempting to influence this debate--be discussed and examined.
  Earlier this year when I gave remarks on this floor, I promised that 
from time to time when I participate in debates on legislation I would 
point out the role of special interest money in our legislative 
process, an effort I am calling The Calling of the Bankroll.
  That's why today I want to briefly highlight some of the political 
contributions that have been made by the agriculture industry--money 
spent to influence the way we approach agriculture appropriations on 
this floor, in the other body, and at the White House.
  Agriculture interests have donated nearly $3 million in soft money 
during the last election cycle, and $15.6 million in PAC money. That's 
well over $18 million overall--and again that's during just a two-year 
period.
  The soft money numbers are particularly interesting, Mr. President, 
because they reflect a pattern that a number of special interests 
follow, known as ``double giving'' or ``switch hitting.'' It means that 
a donor doesn't just give soft money to one party, the party whose 
political views the donor might favor. Instead double givers amass 
political clout by donating generously to both parties.
  Examples of these soft money double givers in the agriculture 
industry during the last cycle include the Archer Daniels Midland 
Company, which donated $263,000 to the Democrats and $255,000 to the 
Republicans; United States Sugar Corp, which donated $157,500 to the 
Democrats and almost $250,000 to the Republicans; and Ocean Spray 
Cranberries Incorporated, which donated $156,060 to the Democrats and 
$117,600 to the Republicans.
  Those are just a handful of examples, Mr. President, but I think they 
give my colleagues an idea of how the double-giving game is played.
  Of course not everyone is a double giver. The top agribusiness soft 
money donor to the Democratic party, crop producer Connell Company, 
gave $435,000, all to the Democratic party committees. Dole Food 
Company gave more than $200,000 in soft money in 1997 and 1998, all to 
Republican party committees.
  And in the interest of fairness, Mr. President, I also should mention 
an agribusiness donor that shares my position against the extension of 
the Northeast Dairy Compact: The International Dairy Foods Association, 
which gave more than $71,000 in soft money during 1997 and 1998 all to 
the Republican party committees.
  There are many interests that will be affected by what we do here on 
this floor with regard to agriculture appropriations, Mr. President, 
and some have more resources to influence this debate than others. It 
is in the spirit of providing a fuller picture of the debate over 
agricultural issues--and the wealthy interests that seek to influence 
the debate's outcome--that I have presented this information, both for 
the benefit of the public and my colleagues.
  I thank the chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, like many in the Nation, Washington's 
agriculture communities have fallen on extremely tough times. For 
example, a combination of adverse economic circumstances has caused 
apple prices to fall to their lowest level in over a decade, while the 
price for soft winter wheat has plummeted to below $2.50 a bushel.
  During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill, we have been discussing what to most growers is in the forefront 
of their mind--their bankbook and their bottom line. Without question, 
this issue deserves our time and attention.
  While crumbling commodity prices have taken their toll on far too 
many proud and previously profitable agricultural producers and their 
families, they also are eroding the very foundation upon which much of 
my State's rural economy is built. Simply put, many of my state's 
farmers and their communities are suffering.
  Washington State produces half the Nation's apples from orchards that 
start at the base of the Cascade mountains and stretch from the 
Canadian border in the north, to the Columbia River in the south. Aided 
by volcanic soil rich in nutrients, irrigation, cool nights and warm 
sunny days, Washington's apples are the envy of the world's other apple 
producing countries.
  Where my State's apple orchards end, Washington's lush fields of 
wheat begin. Spanning the eastern third of my State, Washington's wheat 
farms produce the most sought after wheat in Asia. And yet, being the 
best and producing such high quality products does not always equate to 
success.
  The Asian financial crisis and world wide overproduction have taken 
their toll on Washington's wheat farmers. At the same time, a record 
crop coupled with a decline in export opportunities and a flood of 
cheap apple-juice concentrate imports from China have imperiled many of 
my State's apple growers.
  Still, Washington's agricultural producers are fiercely independent 
and not ones to look for a handout from the Federal Government. Rather, 
in all my discussions with members Washington's agricultural community 
and its leaders, what I am told my State's farmers need and want most 
from the Federal Government is a fair shake. Specifically, their list 
of demands includes trade, access to the tools necessary for quality 
production, regulatory relief, tax relief a dependable labor force, and 
Federal participation in agriculture research.
  Growers have rightfully insisted upon fair and unfettered access to 
the world's consumers, which can only be achieved by insisting that 
there will be no trade deals until an acceptable agricultural agreement 
is reached during the upcoming round of multilateral trade negotiations 
slated to commence this fall in Seattle. I thoroughly support this 
demand, recognizing that Washington's producers export more than 25 
percent of their harvest, with at least one third of the apples grown 
in Washington being shipped, and nine in ten bushels of wheat being 
exported.
  Unfortunately, far too many countries still restrict or prohibit the 
importation of Washington's cornucopia of commodities. That is why I 
have expressed to administration trade officials the importance and 
significance of agriculture negotiations during the Ministerial. We 
must work to pry open these markets and, if need be, deny another 
country's goods access to our market until the doors of trade swing 
freely in both directions.
  For example, just recently the Government of Taiwan agreed to delay 
implementation of pesticide tolerance tests that would have seriously 
hampered the U.S. apple and cherry trade with that country. Recognizing 
Taiwan is the apple industry's largest export market, I took the lead 
among my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that these tests would not 
be implemented until further scientific discovery had occurred.
  Farmers face not only bogus phytosanitary trade barriers, but unfair 
trade practices by other countries. In early June, I sent a letter of 
support to the International Trade Commission regarding the dumping 
case brought by the U.S. apple industry against China. The ITC recently 
unanimously agreed that dumping had occurred and will announce 
potential duties in the near future. The case brought by the industry 
was terribly justified, recognizing the price paid for U.S. apples for 
juice concentrate plummeted to nearly a penny a pound.
  Unilateral trade sanctions, as a result of the convincing messages 
sent by Washington farmers, have been at the center of nearly every 
agriculture discussion in the U.S. Senate. In response to the cries for 
relief from farmers, I have supported nearly every agriculture trade 
sanctions relief bill that has been introduced in the Senate. With 
nearly 60% of the world's population under U.S. sanction, the time to 
discuss the impact of these sanctions on the American family farm could 
not be more timely. It is without question that these sanctions do more 
harm to our agriculture communities than to the regimes on which they 
are imposed.

[[Page S10212]]

  In addition to all the various trade conditions facing the producer, 
farmers in Washington have also demanded access to affordable and 
effective crop protection tools, which can only be achieved through 
science-based implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. That's 
why I am an original cosponsor of the Regulatory Openness and Fairness 
Act to ensure that decisions regarding health risks are informed and 
not hasty, that the intent of the FQPA is carried out with the use of 
sound science and practical application, that a dose of common sense is 
applied, and that adequate time is available to make certain all 
decisions and tolerance standards are healthy and equitable.
  Continued availability of water for irrigation, electrical generation 
and the transportation of bulk commodities from field to port, which 
can only be achieved through a balanced and scientifically-sound salmon 
recovery effort in the Pacific Northwest is a demand that resinates 
throughout Washington's orchards and fields. This is a demand I not 
only respect, but as most producers will know, continues to be one of 
my most important priorities as a U.S. Senator. I have gone to great 
lengths to ensure the solvency of the Snake and Columbia River 
hydroelectric systems with one key user in mind--farmers.
  Washington produces a wide array of minor crops, many that are very 
labor intensive and require special attention during harvest. 
Washington's agriculture community demands a dependable and legal 
workforce to harvest and process their crops, which can only be 
achieved by reforming the H2A labor program to provide agricultural 
employers with an affordable and workable system for securing temporary 
foreign labor. I have testified with my colleagues and introduced bills 
in the Senate that would provide such reforms.
  Farmers in Washington demand meaningful tax relief. Just last week, 
the tax bill passed in the Senate included the much sought after Farm 
and Ranch Risk Management accounts. These set-aside accounts will 
provide the savings mechanism growers have requested in order to secure 
financial longevity. In addition, I am a strong proponent for the 
elimination of the estate tax, one the most onerous financial burdens 
placed on a livelihood that is passed from generation to generation.
  And finally, with passage of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, growers 
demanded federal participation in agriculture research. My role as a 
member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee provides 
the mechanism necessary to ensure that the Pacific Northwest is 
adequately represented, and that science based research is utilized to 
assist growers in producing some of the most demanded, nutritional, and 
safest food supplies in the world.
  All of the aforementioned demands are intended to provide 
Washington's agricultural producers the tools they need to cultivate a 
profitable future. I remain convinced of their merit and committed to 
the task of securing their achievement. Unfortunately, this 
administration has yet to recognize their importance and, in most 
cases, actually opposes their adoption.
  And now the Senate is in the midst of a debate not only over the 
livelihood and longevity of the American farm, but to some extent, the 
policy that drives our nation's combines and tractors. I am unwilling 
to condone the approach being advocated by some of my colleagues, who 
are seeking to turn back the hands of time and to undermine the free-
market principles embodies in the Freedom to Farm Act. Instead, I 
support an approach that provides the resources to those programs 
already in place to assist producers to overcome these difficult times.
  Meanwhile, as the Senate debates the issue of farm economy and 
financial assistance, the White House remains silent. Recognizing the 
bottom line for many in the agriculture sector is slowly dropping, my 
colleagues and I sent a letter to the President, requesting his active 
participation in the establishment of a financial relief package for 
farmers. This letter was in addition to a request included in the 
fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations bill for administration 
involvement. As we debate this sensitive issue today, the 
Administration's inactivity and silence is deafening.
  Recognizing the bleak financial future facing Washington's minor 
crops, I have during the past few days fought tirelessly to ensure that 
funding is provided in the Republican farm assistance package for 
fruits and vegetables. I have undertaken this endeavor very seriously 
and have engaged in extremely frank discussions with my colleagues over 
my support for an amendment that includes such a provision.
  During the debate on the original Cochran financial relief package, I 
was successful in negotiating the inclusion of $50 million for the 
fruit and vegetable industries. Because of my desire to provide 
additional funds for fruits and vegetables, I worked with Senator 
Roberts to include in his amendment $300 million for specialty crops. 
While the entire Roberts amendment failed in the Senate, I am pleased 
that our tree fruit and vegetable industries have a $50 million 
starting point. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I will have the opportunity to work to increase this 
funding during conference on the bill.
  I also responded to the calls for assistance from those in orchard 
country by including an amendment in the bill directing the Farm 
Service Agency to review all programs that assist apple growers in time 
of need. Specifically, I requested that FSA review the limits placed on 
operating loans utilized by apple farmers, and report back to Congress 
what the agency perceives is a workable remedy.
  Rest assured, whatever the final outcome of the Fiscal Year 2000 
Agriculture Appropriations bill, I will send two important messages to 
my agriculture constituency back home. First, I will continue working 
tirelessly to make certain all commodities produced from Washington's 
fertile soil will have a fair shake at receiving some form of 
assistance. I am poised and prepared to continue this challenge. And 
second, I will continue working on agriculture's list of demands, 
pushing to ensure that from trade to labor, and from taxes to 
environment, the livelihood that has made agriculture the career choice 
for so many will remain just that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern that S. 
1233, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for FY2000 does not include 
adequate funding for carbon cycle or carbon sequestration research. The 
Administration has proposed approximately $22 million for these 
programs at the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the 
Agriculture Research Service (ARS). With that money, scientists can 
develop a better understanding of the potential for agricultural lands 
to serve as carbon sinks. These programs are priorities in the U.S. 
Global Change Research Program and the Administration's Climate Change 
Technology Initiative.
  Once we more thoroughly understand how our soils capture and store 
carbon, we can use that knowledge to improve our management practices 
and yields. We can also cost-effectively use soils to offset carbon 
emissions that might lead to global warming. Failure to provide these 
funds is short-sighted and may prevent farmers and ranchers from 
reaping profits through storing carbon on their land in the near 
future.
  Agricultural lands in the U.S. have a huge potential to store carbon 
that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. Each year, the 
U.S. emits about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTC) or 
gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. According to USDA 
experts, properly managed U.S. croplands could be major sinks or 
reservoirs of carbon. They could sequester, or store, 85-200 MMTC more 
per year than the agriculture sector does now. If a coordinated program 
to manage carbon in agricultural soils were implemented worldwide, some 
experts project that carbon sequestration could increase to the rate of 
3000 MMTC per year. This rate is equal to the world's net annual 
increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  Mr. President, about 25-30% of our nation's farmers, growers and 
ranchers are already employing best management practices which will 
effectively store carbon, so farmers and ranchers would not need to 
adopt radically new production techniques to store carbon. Most find 
these practices very cost-effective for their bottom-line because

[[Page S10213]]

the land rewards them for their attention. There are higher yields with 
increased carbon storage, less erosion, and improved soil and water 
quality. As an example, adoption of conservation tillage and residue 
management practices could lock up about .2 metric tons of carbon per 
acre every year.
  Eventually, as actions by some of our major trading partners are now 
demonstrating, there is likely to be a worldwide market in carbon 
credit trading, regardless of what happens to the Kyoto Treaty in this 
country. This is a terrific economic opportunity. As we discuss the 
sorry state of American agriculture and the family farm in the context 
of this bill, we should keep in mind that soil carbon storage could 
become a very lucrative opportunity to maintain income levels. Experts 
are projecting that carbon credits will sell for somewhere between $10-
$50 per ton and maybe higher. So, a farmer using best management 
practices on his 1000 acres could possibly get payments of $2,000-
$10,000 or more per year for storing carbon.
  Mr. President, the very modest sums that the Administration is 
seeking for these programs are not to implement Kyoto through some 
back-door method. There are legitimate scientific questions that need 
to be answered whether or not one believes Kyoto is necessary. 
Understanding soil science better will improve crop yields, make range 
management more efficient, and provide a host of environmental quality 
benefits. This knowledge will benefit all those who produce food and 
fiber.
  I should note for my colleagues that there will be a national 
conference to explore opportunities for carbon sequestration in 
Missoula, Montana, from October 26-28. The purpose of this conference 
is to provide information and education on carbon sequestration 
activities to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions through market-based 
conservation.
  Many of the experts that will speak at this conference are scientists 
whose work would be furthered if Congress funds the Administration's 
request. The efforts of the Montana Carbon Offset Coalition to 
establish a pilot carbon trading program would also be helped along by 
funding these programs.
  Mr. President, there are many pressing needs facing Congress and, in 
particular, the managers of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I just 
think that we should make investing in our future a priority. Soils 
seem to be a great low-cost way for us to reduce the impact our country 
has on the global climate. Even for those who do not believe climate 
change is happening due to mankind's emissions, increasing soil carbon 
content has huge side benefits for the economy and the environment. I 
hope the managers will find a way to fund these important programs in 
conference.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Cochran 
amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill that provides 
emergency relief to the nation's rural communities. I voted for the 
Cochran plan and the assistance it will bring to suffering Minnesota 
farm families.
  Earlier in the discussion of agriculture relief, I participated in 
efforts to find a compromise that could provide more relief than the 
Cochran proposal. Specifically, I believe Minnesota farmers would have 
been better served by the Grassley-Conrad amendment, which failed by a 
close margin. The Grassley-Conrad package provided some additional 
elements, such as flood and crop loss payments, as well as increased 
aid for dairy producers. It was an $8.8 billion proposal that would 
have been particularly beneficial to our state's farmers.
  The Cochran bill preserves the use of increased Agricultural Market 
Transition Act (AMTA) payments for income assistance to farmers, which 
is good for Minnesota producers. The Daschle-Harkin alternative 
package, while providing a higher amount of relief, tied income 
assistance to production levels. I am concerned that their proposal 
would have shortchanged some farmers, like wheat farmers in 
Northwestern Minnesota, who were unable to plant a crop this year due 
to severe weather. In one Northwestern county, only 10 percent of the 
normal acreage was planted. The Cochran proposal also provides needed 
relief to oilseed, livestock, dairy, and sugar producers. It also 
reduces the cost of crop insurance and increases the LDP payment limit 
to $150,000. And it exempts food and medicine sales from unilateral 
sanctions which will help Minnesota farmers sell to Cuba and other 
countries.
  I am also pleased that the Senate resisted the attempt to extend the 
life of the Northeast Compact and prevent enactment of the federal milk 
marketing order reforms during consideration of the emergency farm 
relief package. Considering the hardships that the rural areas are 
suffering, now is certainly not the time to be taking up controversial 
proposals which discriminate against Midwest dairy farmers. Dairy 
farmers in the Midwest are struggling to make a decent living for their 
families, and they should not have to shoulder the additional burden of 
dairy policies that prevent them from receiving a fair price. I urge 
the conferees on the agriculture appropriations bill to likewise reject 
extension of the dairy compacts, and restore market fairness for 
America's dairy producers.
  There is a great deal of apprehension in the rural community over the 
future of farming, and I am certainly glad that we passed essential 
relief for farmers now, instead of waiting until after the August 
recess. I remain committed to Freedom to Farm and the opportunity that 
it promises. However, Freedom to Farm can only help our farmers if the 
political courage can be mustered to enact reforms in the areas of 
taxation, sanctions and regulations, and if we can continue to expand 
our markets. In the short-term the nation's farmers need assistance to 
tide them over in these difficult times, and I'm pleased that the 
Senate took the necessary steps to get aid to them quickly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2000.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $60.4 billion in new budget 
authority (BA) and $40.2 billion in new outlays to fund most of the 
programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. 
All of the discretionary funding in this bill is nondefense spending.
  When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $64.3 billion in BA 
and $47.3 billion in outlays for FY 2000. Including mandatory savings, 
the Subcommittee is at its 302(b) allocation in both BA and outlays.
  The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 302(b) allocation 
totals $64.3 billion in BA and $47.3 billion in outlays. Within this 
amount, $14.0 billion in BA and $14.3 billion in outlays is for 
nondefense discretionary spending.
  For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all 
the mandatory savings in the bill, the Senate-reported bill is at the 
Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays. It is $22 million 
in BA below and $161 million in outlays above the 1999 level for 
discretionary spending, and $537 million in BA and $577 million in 
outlays below the President's 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.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

   H.R. 1906, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 2000; SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                      (Fiscal Year 2000 $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority..............   13,983   ........   50,295    64,278
  Outlays.......................   14,254   ........   33,088    47,342
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..............   13,983   ........   50,295    64,278
  Outlays.......................   14,254   ........   33,088    47,342
1999 level:
  Budget authority..............   14,005   ........   41,460    55,465
  Outlays.......................   14,093   ........   33,429    47,522
President's request:
  Budget authority..............   14,520   ........   50,295    64,815
  Outlays.......................   14,831   ........   33,088    47,919
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..............   13,882   ........   50,295    64,177
  Outlays.......................   14,508   ........   33,088    47,596
 

[[Page S10214]]

 
  SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
               TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..............  ........  ........  ........  ........
  Outlays.......................  ........  ........  ........  ........
1999 level:
  Budget authority..............      (22)  ........    8,835     8,813
  Outlays.......................      161   ........     (341)     (180)
President's request:
  Budget authority..............     (537)  ........  ........     (537)
  Outlays.......................     (577)  ........  ........     (577)
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..............      101   ........  ........      101
  Outlays.......................     (254)  ........  ........     (254)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other statements or 
amendments to be submitted.
  I suggest that we are ready for third reading of the bill.
  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. Under order of the Senate, H.R. 1906 is 
discharged and the Senate will proceed to the bill. All after the 
enacting clause is stricken, and the text of S. 1233 is inserted, H.R. 
1906 is read a third time and passed, the Senate insists on its 
amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair appoints 
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Burns, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, 
Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to 
commend Senator Cochran for the great job he has done in handling this 
matter. There were a lot of interesting matters that came up and a lot 
of amendments that he had to consider. He has handled all of them 
skillfully and ably. We are very proud of the manner in which he has 
handled it. I also wish to commend the able Senator Kohl for working 
with him so well and doing such a fine job. We are very fortunate to 
have these fine men to handle this matter in such a skillful manner.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank very much the distinguished 
President pro tempore, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, 
for his generous remarks and his assistance in the handling of this 
bill of the Senate. His leadership is legendary. His influence in this 
body continues to be very important. We are grateful for his continued 
service in the Senate.
  I also want to commend members of our staffs who have been so 
diligent and so effective in the handling of the duties they have 
assumed in connection with the development of this legislation and the 
passage of the bill. I specifically want to commend: Mark Keenum, my 
chief of staff; Rebecca Davies, chief clerk of the subcommittee; Hunt 
Shipman, Martha Scott Poindexter, Les Spivey, and Buddy Allen. They 
have all been very helpful and very conscientious and discharged their 
responsibilities in a professional and very praiseworthy way. I am 
deeply grateful for their good help.
  On the Democratic side of the aisle, my good friend and colleague 
from Wisconsin is serving as a manager of this bill for the first time. 
He has done a great job helping us sort through the requests and the 
amendments that have been suggested in helping guide this bill to 
passage. We have not agreed on everything, but we worked through our 
disagreements in a cordial way. I appreciate very much his leadership 
on the Democratic side and the way he has handled his responsibilities.
  I also want to thank the staff members who have worked on the 
Democratic side on this bill: Paul Bock, who is the chief of staff of 
Senator Kohl; Kate Sparks, his legislative director; Galen Fountain, 
who is an experienced member of the subcommittee staff, having worked 
for Senator Bumpers and others since his time here as a member of the 
Senate staff; and Carole Geagley. We appreciate the opportunity to work 
with all these fine folks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I take this moment to thank Senator Cochran 
who has been an extremely fine and fair chairman. He has done a 
tremendous job in shepherding this bill through. I thank also Becky 
Davies of his subcommittee, and I express my appreciation to Galen 
Fountain, Paul Bock, and Kate Sparks of my side. They have done a 
tremendous job and been of great assistance to me. I couldn't have done 
my job without their help.
  I am very pleased we have reached this point.

                          ____________________