Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7351-S7379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S7351]]

Senate

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

Amendments Nos. 3457, 3933 to 3457, 3965, 3966, 3967, 3968, 3969, 3970,
3971, 3972, 3973, 3974, 3975, and 3976, En Bloc

Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask consent that the Harkin amendment No. 3964
and the other emergency designation amendments now pending at the desk
be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3964) was agreed to.
The amendments, en bloc, were agreed to as follows:

amendment no. 3457

(Purpose: To provide market and quality loss assistance for certain
commodities)

On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
Sec. 7____. Apple Market Loss Assistance and Quality Loss
Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--(a) Apple Market Loss
Assistance.--
(1) In general.--In order to provide relief for loss of
markets for apples, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use
$100,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make payments to apple producers.
(2) Payment quantity.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the payment
quantity of apples for which the producers on a farm are
eligible for payments under this subsection shall be equal to
the average quantity of the 1994 through 1999 crops of apples
produced by the producers on the farm.
(B) Maximum quantity.--The payment quantity of apples for
which the producers on a farm are eligible for payments under
this subsection shall not exceed 1,600,000 pounds of apples
produced on the farm.
(b) Quality Loss Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--In
addition to the assistance provided under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall use $15,000,000 of funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to make payments to apple producers, and
potato producers, that suffered quality losses to the 1999
crop of potatoes and apples, respectively, due to, or related
to, a 1999 hurricane or other weather-related disaster.
(c) Nonduplication of Payments.--A producer shall be
ineligible for payments under this section with respect to a
market or quality loss for apples or potatoes to the extent
that the producer is eligible for compensation or assistance
for the loss under any other Federal program, other than the
Federal crop insurance program established under the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(d) Emergency Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out
this section shall be available only to the extent that an
official budget request for the entire amount, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) is
transmitted by the President to Congress.
(2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out
this section is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2
U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which would assist
apple growers who suffered losses from fire blight and other weather
related and economic damage. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators
Collins, Schumer, Gorton, Murray, Snowe, Leahy, Jeffords, Moynihan,
Durbin, Rockefeller, Robb, Abraham, and Lieberman. This spring, apple
growers in Michigan suffered huge crop losses and damage due to several
hail storms which caused thousands of acres of apple trees to be
infected with fire blight. Fire blight is a bacterium that has
destroyed thousands of acres of fruit trees in Michigan. Experts at
Michigan State University anticipate that \1/4\ of all MI apple farmers
have trees that are afflicted by fire blight. As a result of this
weather related disaster, many of Michigan's best apple producers face
diminished production this fall, and decreased revenues for many years
to come. My amendment provides essential assistance for apple and
potato producers that have suffered quantity losses due to fire blight
or other weather related disasters. These hardships could not come at a
worse time for our nation's apple farmers who, according to USDA, have
lost nearly $1 billion over the past three years due to a variety of
factors including diseases, such as fire blight. This legislation also
includes assistance for apple and potato farmers who have incurred
quality losses due to weather-related disasters.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act, which President Clinton signed
into law, included some emergency assistance for our nation's farmers.
However, much remains to be done to address the myriad of problems
facing out nation's apple farmers. That is why with 13 cosponsors I
have introduced amendment No. 3457 that would provide $100 million in
assistance this year for quantitative losses of our nation's apple
farmers. A second degree amendment that would provide $60 million for
qualitative losses, suffered by apple and potato farmers, was attached
to my amendment by Senators Abraham and Schumer. Articles from a number
of Michigan papers show the plight of apple farmers, and mentions the
need for direct assistance, in the form of this amendment, to our apple
farmers. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Herald-Palladium, June 22, 2000]

Bad Apples: Fire Blight Is Taking Bite Out of Area Crops

Farmers seek federal financial assistance for acres of dying trees

(By Michael Eliasohn)

Watervliet--The name of Rodney Winkel's farm is Grandview
Orchards, but the view these days is far from grand.
A building on Winkel's Bainbridge Township farm Wednesday
morning was the location for a meeting of about 80 Southwest
Michigan farmers who have the same view--brown dead leaves on
dying apple trees.

[[Page S7352]]

The cause is fire blight, a bacterial infection that
shrivels the apples and can kill the trees. Alan Jones,
Michigan State University's fire blight expert, said it's the
worst outbreak ever in Michigan.
John Sarno, U.S. Farm Service Agency Southwest Michigan
regional director, said his office has received preliminary
reports of fire blight damage in Berrien, Van Buren, Cass and
Kalamazoo counties. He expects to receive a similar report
soon from Allegan County and believes there may be damage in
Ottawa and Kent counties.
Prior to the meeting, Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB) conducted
a tour of four fire blighted orchards in Van Buren County for
aides to several Michigan members of Congress, plus staff
from the MSU College of Agriculture, the Farm Service Agency,
Michigan Department of Agriculture and others.
Winkel described the problem facing the farmers. He and his
son-in-law Mark Epple grow about 300 acres of apples. ``I
conservatively estimate we'll take out 60 to 70 acres of
trees,'' he said. ``These are huge dollars we're talking
about and the cookie jar is dry.''
``A number of years ago, agriculture could handle a
disaster like this,'' but not any more, said MFB President
Jack Laurie, who chaired the meeting. ``The (profit) margin
has been reduced, so farmers can't stand a big loss.''
Unlike a spring freeze that wipes out that year's crop, the
fire blight damage goes far beyond one year.
Coloma area grower Jerry Jollay said during the meeting he
and his son, Jay, expect to lose about half of their 55 acres
of apple trees.
He later told The Herald-Palladium if trees are removed and
new trees planted, it takes 5-6 years until they start
producing a good crop and it isn't until the eighth year they
get a full crop.
He estimated it costs from $4,000 to $10,000 per acre to
replant trees and to maintain them until they start
producing, depending on the number planted per acre. The
figure does not include the value of lost production.
Growers may be able to remove diseased limbs and save some
trees, according to Jones of MSU, but that could mean 2-3
years of reduced crops until it gets back to full production.
``But if you don't get it all,'' said Mike Hildebrand, ``it
will flare up next year or the year after.'' Hildebrand and
his father, Ernie, grow about 70 acres of apples near Berrien
Springs.
Jones said if an infected limb is missed, the fire blight
will spread to the roots and kill the tree.
And if one tree is infected, the fire blight can spread to
the rest of the trees in the orchard.
Sarno told the growers there is no existing program to
compensate them for fire blight damages, that Congress has to
approve one and the funds for it. ``We have to start over,''
he said. ``We have to look at what we have today (in damage)
and that's what we're doing today.''
Sarno later told The Herald-Palladium there are three
potential programs Congress could approve, one involving low-
interest loans to partially compensate them for their
production losses and tree losses.
The other two programs would give them grants, either to
help cover production losses or pay for removing
diseased trees and planting new ones.
Farmers with crop insurance may be covered for lost crops
this year.
Sarno said county agricultural emergency boards must first
compile loss data, which they forward to the state emergency
board.
If the state board decided the loss is significant enough,
it asks Gov. John Engler to ask U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Dan Glickman to declare the affected counties agricultural
disaster areas, thus qualifying growers for aid, if Congress
OKs it.
Sarno said the last time there was such an emergency, in
Kent County in 1998 when winds blew down trees and spread
fire blight, ti took about a year before growers received
their government checks. ``We hope to expedite this (for fire
blight damage),'' he said.
Winkel said he could lose 30,000-35,000 bushels of apples
this year, and for the next several years, until replacement
trees start producing apples, his loss could be 50,000
bushels a year.
The value of apples varies widely, depending on the
variety, when they are sold and their use, but at $6 per
bushel--the 1999 average from two area packing houses for
Jonathans--Winkel's annual loss would be $300,000 a year.
He said Idared, Jonathon, Rome, Gala, Paulared and Golden
Delicious are the varieties being affected most by fire
flight.
For some growers, fire blight isn't their only problem.
Jollay said spring frosts and freezes reduced his tart cherry
crop by probably half, apples by 20 percent and peaches by 50
percent.
Then hail on May 18 caused more damage, followed by the
fire blight. He guessed he will have only about a fourth of
his normal crop of apples.
In his 35 years in agriculture, Jollay said, he has
suffered losses from freezes, hail and fire blight, but not
all in one year. ``This is absolutely the worst I've ever
seen.'' He said he and his son hope to get through this year
with income from pumpkins, their other significant crop, and
their pick-your-own ``family fun'' operations in the fall.
As for possible federal aid, he said: ``Hopefully this will
help alleviate part of the problem.''
Coloma area grower Paul Friday, whose 140 acres of peaches
suffered major hail damage on May 18, asked that hail-caused
damage to fruit and young trees not yet bearing fruit be
included in any assistance program.
____

[From the Kalamazoo Gazette, June 22, 2000]

Apple Growers Getting Burned--Epidemic of Fire Blight Devastates Local
Crop

(By Ed Finnerty)

HARTFORD--The Golden Delicious apple trees on Kevin
Winkel's family farm are anything but golden or delicious.
Their leaves are more brown than green. Their fruit
resembles rotting grapes more than edible apples.
To Winkel and scores of besieged farmers in the apple
country of Van Buren and Berrien counties, a killer epidemic
of fire blight that has overtaken their orchards and
threatens their livelihoods is a disaster by any reasonable
standard.
``It got my entire crop,'' lamented Winkel, a second-
generation grower working the land he took over from his
father 16 years ago.
``There will be zero income from this year's crop and at
least half of the expenses are already in it,'' said Winkel,
a married father of two who isn't sure the business will
survive the loss.
Apple farmers in Van Buren and Berrien counties in
southwestern Michigan are hoping to persuade the Federal
Government to declare their farms disaster areas, entitling
them to aid farm officials say may be a last lifeline for
some growers.
``The problem here is devastating,'' said Al Almy, Michigan
Farm Bureau's director of public policy and commodities. ``It
could put some of the very best growers right out of
business.''
Fire blight is a bacterial disease affecting primarily
apple and pear trees that is spread by insects and often
enters blooms or leaves damaged by wind or hail. It destroys
tissue it infects, killing blossoms and shoots, sometimes
progressing into the tree and its roots. Badly infected trees
look like they have been burned.
Strains of fire blight that have become resistant to
antibiotic sprays have slowly spread in area orchards, but a
May 18 storm that produced hail and high winds is blamed with
sparking the huge outbreak.
Mark Longstroth, district horticulture and marketing agent
with the MSU Extension, estimates some 300 to 400 growers and
27,000 acres of apples will be affected by the blight. The
major damage is in Van Buren and Berrien counties, but fire
blight has appeared in Allegan, Cass and Kalamazoo counties
too, officials say.
Officials are still evaluating losses but say they may
reach about $10 million in the two counties. This year's
losses will be multiplied in future years with the loss of
production from trees that are killed.
``This is one of the worst epidemics we have ever seen,''
said Alan Jones, a professor of plant pathology at Michigan
State University. Jones, a fire blight expert with MSU for 30
years, said this outbreak dwarfs the worst epidemic he had
seen previously, in 1991.
The Michigan Farm Bureau on Wednesday invited media and
representatives from the area's congressional delegation to
tour orchards from Lawrence in Van Buren County to Watervliet
in Berrien County. The caravan stopped at some orchards to
inspect the damages, but in most cases a drive by acre after
acre of brown orchards was all that was needed to see the
devastation.
At an orchard near Watervliet, dozens of apple growers
waited to meet with representatives from the Farm Bureau,
USDA, Michigan Department of Agriculture, MSU Extension and
other agencies. It was partly a show for the invited media,
including crews from several newspapers and
television stations, and a show of force to
representatives of the Congressional delegations.
Staffers for U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and Reps. Fred Upton,
Nick Smith, Vernon Ehlers, and Peter Hoekstra were on hand
Wednesday, and Michigan Farm Bureau President Jack Laurie
urged growers to push them for disaster assistance.
``Levin's office is the one we've got to lean on, this guy
here,'' one grower said to others, as they waited for another
farmer to finish bending the ear of Levin's staffer.
If a disaster is declared, farmers will be eligible for
low-interest loans to cover losses and replace trees. Federal
assistance to replace weather-damaged trees doesn't cover
fire blight, but officials from the Farm Bureau and other
assembled agencies said political pressure should be applied
to get that coverage.
A state emergency board will be convened to evaluate losses
in the affected counties, then ask Gov. John Engler to
request federal disaster relief from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
``I think we have seen enough to know this is very
widespread, this is very dramatic,'' said John Sarno,
district director for USDA Farm Services Agency, who took his
camera along on Wednesday's tour. ``There are going to be
great losses.''
Any help would be welcomed by Winkel, who says he may have
to find a second job and whose wife may have to go from
working as a part-time nurse to working full time. His 100
acres of trees, which last year produced about 73,000 bushels
of apples and $300,000 in revenue, will yield nothing this
year.
``The whole future of the southwest Michigan fruit industry
is at stake here,'' said Tom Butler, head of the Michigan
Processing

[[Page S7353]]

Apple Growers. ``A lot of growers are not going to be able to
stay in business until some serious help comes along.''
The fire blight will have no discernible impact on
consumers because of a strong supply of apples nationwide,
Butler said

Mr. LEVIN. I am particularly grateful to Senator Susan Collins whose
support has been essential. I am also pleased with the many bipartisan
cosponsors who have supported this legislation.
This amendment is similar to legislation which recently passed the
other body as part of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend
Senator Levin in offering an amendment to provide much needed relief
for apple and potato producers across America. Senator Levin and I
share a deep concern for these farmers, who have endured such
unexpected hardship over the past year. I am grateful for having the
opportunity to work with my friend from Michigan on this critical
matter.
Over the past three years, America's apple growers have lost more
than $760 million according to U.S. Department of Agriculture
statistics. Market conditions, beyond the control of our farmers, and
unfair trade practices have contributed significantly to these loses.
There has been a reduction in demand for U.S. apples in much of the
world because of poor economic conditions in foreign markets. The
domestic demand for apples has been affected by conditions abroad as
well. With dimished demand oversees, we have seen an increase in the
foreign supply of apples in our domestic markets. The U.S. Department
of Commerce and the International Trade Commission recently found that
our producers have been victimized by unfairly priced imports of
Chinese apple juice concentrate.
Unusual weather also has hurt our potato and apple producers. The
Maine Pomological Society, a group that primarily represents apple
producers in my State, reports that a summer-long drought, coupled with
the heavy winds and rains of Hurricane Floyd in the fall, had a
disastrous impact on the quality of apples produced in Maine last year.
On average, only 49% of Maine's 1999 apple crop could be sold at the
``fancy grade'' quality. To provide my colleagues with a sense of what
this means, I would note that in 1998, 78% of the apples produced in
Maine were labeled as fancy grade.
Maine potato farmers also found themselves victims of weather-related
disasters in 1999. In Maine, some potato farmers found their fields
covered in as much as 15 inches of water following the drenching that
accompanied Hurricane Floyd last fall. Because many of Maine's farmers
leave their crop in storage over the winter, we did not realize the
full extent of the damage caused by Floyd's rains until this spring.
Mr. President, potato farmers pour their hearts and souls into their
fields. It is profoundly disheartening to hear from a farmer who has
lost an entire crop that took many months of hard work to cultivate.

The amendment Senator Levin and I offer today provides much-needed
assistance to both potato and apple producers. Under our proposal, the
Secretary of Agriculture would allocate $100 million in market loss
assistance payments to our nation's apple producers. The market loss
payments authorized by our amendment will help thousands of apple
growers from Washington State to Michigan to Maine survive the losses
they have endured due to conditions beyond their control. This
amendment directs a modest amount of funds to producers who have
received very little of the nearly $15 billion in emergency agriculture
spending that we have passed this fiscal year.
Our amendment also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
$15 million in quality loss payments to apple and potato producers who
suffered losses as a result of a hurricane or other weather-related
disaster. This assistance will be important to those farmers who were
unable to produce their finest product because of adverse weather
conditions.
Mr. President, the provisions of our amendment are similar to
language in the House-passed version of the FY 2001 Agriculture
Appropriations bill. The provisions recognize that potato and apple
producers, like other farmers across the country, are subject to the
vagaries of international markets and the weather. I ask my colleagues
to join us in providing assistance to our apple and potato producers in
their time of need.
If anyone questions the emergency nature of this request, I would
refer them to a news story that ran on the evening news in Maine this
past Tuesday. The segment focused on a long-time apple grower from
Alfred, Maine. The grower, with much regret, has come to the conclusion
that after thirty-five years this will have to be his family's last
crop. The dwindling profits are not enough incentive for the next
generation of the family to contend with the government regulations and
uncertainty that comes with running an apple orchard. I encourage my
colleagues who missed this broadcast from Maine to read the story in
Tuesday's New York Times about the hardships being endured by apple
growers in New York who watched hail storms this spring wipe out much
of their crops. This amendment and the aid it represents is certainly
an emergency to these producers.
Mr. President, the federal government must be a partner in our
farmer's efforts to feed America and much of the world. The Levin-
Collins amendment ensures that our apple and potato producers get the
help they need to overcome the difficulties of the past year and
continue to produce a quality product. I urge my colleagues to support
our amendment, and I yield the floor.

amendment no. 3933

(Purpose: To provide relief for apple growers whose crops have suffered
extensive crop damage as a result of fireblight)

On page 2, lines 16 through 23, strike all after ``(b)''
and insert,
``Quality Loss Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--In
addition to the assistance provided under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall use $60,000,000 of funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to make payments to apple producers, and
potato producers, that suffered quality losses to the 1999
and 2000 crop of potatoes and apples, respectively, due to,
or related to, a 1999 or 2000 hurricane, fireblight or other
weather related disaster.
____

amendment no. 3965

(Purpose: To ensure that nursery stock producers receive emergency
financial assistance for nursery stock losses caused by Hurricane
Irene)

At the apropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. ____.--In using amounts made available under section
801(a) of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
(7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 106-78), or under the matter
under the heading ``crop loss assistance'' under the heading
``Commodity Credit Corporation Fund'' of H.R. 3425 of the
106th Congress, as enacted by section 1001(a)(5) of Public
Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-289), to provide emergency
financial assistance to producers on a farm that have
incurred losses in a 1999 crop due to a disaster, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall consider nursery stock losses
caused by Hurricane Irene on October 16 and 17, 1999, to be
losses to the 1999 crop of nursery stock: Provided, That the
entire amount necessary to carry out this section shall be
available only to the extent that an official budget request
for the entire amount, that includes designation of the
entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement
under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is transmitted by the
President to Congress: Provided further, That the entire
amount necessary to carry out this section is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Mack and I offer this amendment
that will correct an injustice being done to nursery growers in south
Florida impacted by Hurricane Irene in October of 1999.
On October 15, Florida was hit with Hurricane Irene.
Following closely on the heels of Hurricane Floyd, a storm that
caused a disaster declaration in 13 states, Hurricane Irene dropped
over nine inches of rainfall on average across Palm Beach, Broward, and
Miami-Dade Counties.
Three-day rainfall totals at specific measuring sites throughout this
area ranged between 10.88 and 17.47 inches.
Nineteen Florida counties received a major disaster declaration.
At the height of the storm, more than 1 million people lost power.
Agriculture losses from Hurricane Irene totaled over $438 million.
In total, seven deaths were attributed to Irene's visit to the
Florida coastline.

[[Page S7354]]

Last year, Congress specifically provided $186 million in
``additional resources for damage caused by hurricanes and other
natural disasters in Florida and other states'' under Title I--
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of the FY 2000 Omnibus
Appropriations Act.
This crop loss assistance was provided in addition to the $1.2
billion previously allocated under the Crop Disaster Program to respond
to farmers who suffered losses due to ``adverse weather and related
conditions.''
In executing this program, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made the
determination that nursery, unlike other Florida crops damaged by
Hurricane Irene, will not be eligible for Crop Disaster Program
assistance.
FSA indicates that nursery is ineligible because the program is
limited to losses in the 1999 crop year, and the hurricane damage
occurred after the FSA-set 2000 crop year had begun.
The hurricane damage occurred on October 16-17, 1999, and the 2000
nursery crop year, according to FSA, began on October 1, 1999.
By all accounts, the FSA's crop year determination was made on an
arbitrary basis as nursery does not have a traditional crop year and
crops are grown on a year-round basis.
By contrast, the Risk Management Agency had a similar problem and
made a special dispensation for the nursery crop year to provide
eligibility for hurricane losses under the federal crop insurance
program.
The Florida delegation has made a concerted attempt to work closely
with the Department since the hurricane damage occurred.
On December 9, 1999 FSA representatives briefed the Florida
delegation on disaster assistance available to Florida farmers, and we
were informed that Crop Disaster Program assistance would be available
to respond to hurricane-related farm losses in Florida.
Today, it is still not available.
The amendment we offer today will ensure that nursery stock losses
due to Hurricane Irene will be eligible for relief under the Crop
Disaster Program.
Mr. President, the intent of Congress was clear--that losses in
Florida due to natural disasters should be covered by the Crop Disaster
Program.
I hope that my colleagues will support our amendment that will
provide clear direction to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
ensure that its actions meet the intent of Congress.
I urge its adoption.

amendment no. 3966

(Purpose: To permit the enrollment of an additional 100,000 acres in
the wetlands reserve program)

On page 85, after line 8, of Division B, as modified, add
the following:
Sec. . Notwithstanding section 1237(b)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)(1)), the Secretary of
Agriculture may permit the enrollment of not to exceed
1,075,000 acres in the wetlands reserve program: Provided,
That not withstanding section 11 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i), such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended, shall provided
through the Commodity Credit Corporation in fiscal year 2000
for technical assistance activities performed by any agency
of the Department of Agriculture in carrying out this
section. Provided further, That the entire amount necessary
to carry out this section shall be available only to the
extent that an official budget request for the entire amount
that includes designation of the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of such Act.
____

amendment no. 3967

On page 85, after line 8 of Division B, as modified, add:
Sec. . In addition to other compensation paid by the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary shall compensate or
otherwise seek to make whole from funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation, not to exceed $4,000,000, the owners of
all sheep destroyed from flocks under the Secretary's
declarations of July 14, 2000 for lost income, or other
business interruption losses, due to actions of the Secretary
with respect to such sheep: Provided, That the entire amount
necessary to carry out this section shall be available only
to the extent that an official budget request for the entire
amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the
request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
____

amendment no. 3968

(Purpose: To provide emergency funding for the Grain Inspection,
Packers, and Stockyards Administration for completion of a
biotechnology reference facility)

On page 76, after lines 18, of Division B, as modified,
insert the following:

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

For an additional amount for the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration, $600,000 for completion of a
biotechnology reference facility: Provided, That the entire
amount shall be available only to the extent an official
budget request for $600,000, that includes designation of the
entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as
defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to
Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement in
accordance with section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act.
____

amendment no. 3969

(Purpose: To ensure that growers who experienced crop losses due to
citrus canker receive appropriate compensation)

On page 83, line 5, strike the following: ``; and (e)
compensate commercial producers for losses due to citrus
canker''.
On page 85, after line 8, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act)
the Secretary of agriculture shall use not more than
$40,000,000 of Commodity Credit Corporation funds for a
cooperative program with the state of Florida to replace
commercial trees removed to control citrus canker and to
compensate for lost production: Provided, That the entire
amount necessary to carry out this section shall be available
only to the extent that an official budget request for the
entire amount, that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement under the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. et
seq.), is transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount necessary to carry out this
section is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)(A)).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, members of the Senate, I rise before you
today with my colleague, Senator Mack, to offer an amendment to the
Agriculture Appropriations bill on behalf of the Florida citrus
industry.
Mr. President, if ever there was an industry in crisis, this is it.
Since last year, the Florida citrus industry has been besieged by the
ravages of citrus canker.
Citrus canker is a disease that spreads rapidly through the air to
infect grove after grove after grove.
There is no cure.
Once a tree becomes infected, it must be burned to the ground to
prevent further spreading.
As part of an ongoing effort to eradicate citrus canker, the Animal
Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a regulation
requiring the destruction of all trees within a 1,900 foot radius of an
infected tree.
The result is that hundreds of healthy trees are burned to the
ground.
This government regulation is critical to eradication of citrus
canker, but it increases the number of trees that are destroyed.
To date, over 1,500 acres of limes and oranges, have been burned.
In response, both the Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture
declared a state of emergency in Florida due to the citrus canker
outbreak.
Once destroyed, it takes between three and four years for a citrus
tree to reach maturity and produce its maximum capacity of fruit.
The growers whose healthy trees are destroyed by the federal
government are robbed of income today and income for the next three to
four years.
I believe that the destruction of the healthy trees in accordance
with federal regulation is in effect, a ``federal taking'' of private
property for which Florida citrus producers should be compensated.
The Appropriations bill we are considering today provides the
Secretary with authority to spend funds on compensation for growers who
experience losses due to citrus canker.
Our amendment would modify this language to mirror language in the
House-passed Agriculture Appropriations bill which provides up to $40
million for compensation of growers for citrus canker losses.

[[Page S7355]]

Our amendment ensures that Florida citrus growers whose trees are
destroyed as a result of federal regulation are able to receive
appropriate compensation.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in providing much needed
assistance to an industry besieged by disease and severely impacted by
a federal regulation which, while well-intentioned and important to the
eradication of this disease, robs citrus growers of income from healthy
trees for a three to four year period.

AMENDMENT NO. 3970

On page 76, strike lines 6 through 18 and insert in lieu
thereof:
``For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$59,400,000 to be available until September 30, 2001:
Provided, That this amount shall be used for the Boll weevil
eradication program for cost share purposes or for debt
retirement for active eradication zones: Provided, That the
entire amount shall be available only to the extent on
official budget request for $59,400,000, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of
such Act.''

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, during year 2000, the National Boll
Weevil Eradication Program (BWEP) will have approximately 6.8 million
acres under active eradication and treatments will be initiated on an
additional 832,000 acres, bringing the total acreage in active
eradication to 7.65 million acres. The states participating in
treatments currently are: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
By 2001 another 2 million acres will begin eradication, and at the
same time, eradication will be completed on about 1 million acres. Thus
the total acreage in active eradication in 2001 will increase to 8.8
million acres. The peak year for the high costs to the participants of
the eradication program will be in 2001.
Initially the BWEP operated on a 70/30 cost-share basis with the
growers providing 70 percent through a pre-acre self-assessment
approved by referendum and 30 percent provided through annual federal
appropriations. Programs in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Arizona and portions of Alabama and Florida were completed
with a 70/30 cost-share. As participating acreage rapidly expanded
across the cotton belt, the federal cost-share declined from 30 percent
to about 4 percent in fiscal year 2000.
With the problems American agriculture is still facing with low
commodity prices, droughts, and flooding, the burden of this program at
a cost-share rate of 96/4 is jeopardizing the participation in the Boll
Weevil Eradication Program nationwide.
This amendment, which I am offering today to the Fiscal Year 2001
Agricultural Appropriations bill, increases the Animal, Plant and
Health Inspection Service's salaries and expenses by $59,400,000. This
amendment includes an emergency declaration which requires the
President to request the full amount before the monies are
appropriated.
This additional appropriation will enable APHIS to increase federal
funding for is to increase the Boll Weevil Eradication Program by
$59,400,000 for 2000. This amount is needed to provide a thirty percent
cost-share to farmers participating in the program. With this
appropriation, farmers will be able to fully participate in the
eradication program without putting another financial strain on their
farm income.

amendment no. 3971

(Purpose: To provide financial assistance to the State of South
Carolina in capitalizing the South Carolina Grain Dealers Guaranty
Fund)

At the appropriate place in chapter 1 of title I of
Division B, insert the following:
For an additional amount for the Secretary of Agriculture
to provide financial assistance to the State of South
Carolina in capitalizing the South Carolina Grain Dealers
Guaranty Fund, $2,500,000: Provided, That, these funds shall
only be available if the State of South Carolina provides an
equal amount to the South Carolina Grain Dealers Guaranty
Fund: Provided further, That the entire amount necessary to
carry out this section shall be available only to the extent
that an official budget request for the entire amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of such Act.
____

amendment no. 3972

(Purpose: To restrict the use of funds to provide certain conservation
assistance and authorize a transfer of funds for the Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program)

On page 85, after line 8, of Division B, as modified, add
the following:
Sec. (a). None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to
carry out section 211 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act
of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 3830 note; Public Law 106-224) unless--
(1) the Secretary permits funds made available under
section 211(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 to be used to provide financial or technical assistance
to farmers and ranchers for the purposes described in section
211(b) of that Act; and
(2) notwithstanding section 387(c) of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.
3836a(c)), the Secretary permits funds made available under
section 211 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(16 U.S.C. 3830 note; Public Law 106-224) to be used to
provide additional funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program established under that section 387 in such sums as
the Secretary considers necessary to carry out that Program.
(b) The entire amount necessary to carry out this section
shall be available only to the extent that an official budget
request for the entire amount, that includes designation of
the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement
as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress: Provided, That the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
____

amendment no. 3973

(Purpose: To provide for assistance for emergency haying and feed
operations in the State of Alabama)

In section 1107, after the first proviso insert ``Provided
further, That of the $450,000,000 amount, the Secretary shall
use not less than $5,000,000 to provide assistance for
emergency haying and feed operations in the State of
Alabama:''.
____

amendment no. 3974

(Purpose: To provide emergency funding to the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Community Facilities program)

On page 40, line 17, after the period, insert the
following:
``For an additional amount for the rural community
advancement program under subtitle E of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009 et seq.),
$50,000,000, to remain available until expended, to provide
loans under the community facility direct and guaranteed
loans program and grants under the community facilities grant
program under paragraphs (1) and (19), respectively, of
section 306(a) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)) with respect to
areas in the State of North Carolina subject to a declaration
of a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)
as a result of Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Dennis, or
Hurricane Irene: Provided, That the $50,000,000 shall be
available only to the extent that the President submits to
Congress an official budget request for a specific dollar
amount that includes designation of the entire amount of the
request as an emergency requirement for the purposes of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 900 et seq.) Provided further, That the $50,000,000 is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement under
section 251 (b)(2)(A) of the Balance Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
____

amendment no. 3975

(Purpose: To make emergency financial assistance available to producers
on a farm that have incurred losses in a 2000 crop due to a disaster
and to producers of specialty crops that incurred losses during the
1999 crop year due to a disaster)

At the end of chapter 1 of title I of division B, add the
following:
Sec. 1108. Crop Loss Assistance.--(a) In General.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary
of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (not to exceed
$450,000,000) to make emergency financial assistance
available to producers on a farm that have incurred losses in
a 2000 crop due to a disaster, as determined by the
Secretary.
(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance
available under this section in the same manner as provided
under section 1102 of the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 105-
277), including using the same loss thresholds as were used
in administering that section.

[[Page S7356]]

(c) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may
be made available for losses due to damaging weather or
related condition (including losses due to scab, sclerotinia,
aflotoxin, and other crop diseases) associated with crops
that are, as determined by the Secretary--
(1) quantity losses (including quantity losses as a result
of quality losses);
(2) quality losses; or
(3) severe economic losses.
(d) Crops Covered.--Assistance under this section shall be
applicable to losses for all crops, as determined by the
Secretary, due to disasters.
(e) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize
producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(f) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--The Secretary may use
such sums as are necessary of funds made available under this
section to make livestock indemnity payments to producers on
a farm that have incurred losses during calendar year 2000
for livestock losses due to a disaster, as determined by the
Secretary.
(g) Hay Losses.--The Secretary may use such sums as are
necessary of funds made available under this section to make
payments to producers on a farm that have incurred losses of
hay stock during calendar year 2000 due to a disaster, as
determined by the Secretary.
(h) Emergency Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out
this section shall be available only to the extent that an
official budget request for the entire amount, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is
transmitted by the President to Congress.
(2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out
this section is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2
U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
Sec. 1109. Specialty Crops.--(a) In General.--The Secretary
of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary of funds
of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make emergency
financial assistance available to producers of fruits,
vegetables, and other specialty crops, as determined by the
Secretary, that incurred losses during the 1999 crop year due
to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may
be made available for losses due to a disaster associated
with specialty crops that are, as determined by the
Secretary--
(1) quantity losses;
(2) quality losses; or
(3) severe economic losses.
(c) Eligibility.--Assistance under this section shall be
applicable to losses for all specialty crops, as determined
by the Secretary, due to disasters.
(d) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize
producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(e) Emergency Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out
this section shall be available only to the extent that an
official budget request for the entire amount, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is
transmitted by the President to Congress.
(2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out
this section is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2
U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
____

amendment no. 3976

On page 85 after line 8 of Division B, as modified, insert:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall make a payment in the amount
of $7,200,000 to the State of Hawaii from the Commodity
Credit Corporation for assistance to agricultural
transportation cooperative in Hawaii, the members of which
are eligible to participate in the Farm Service Agency
administered Commodity Loan Program and have suffered
extraordinary market losses due to unprecedented low prices.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments, (Nos. 3457, 3933, 3965, 3966, 3967, 3968, 3969, 3970,
3971, 3972, 3973, 3974, 3975, and 3976), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask consent that it not be in order in the
Senate, for the remainder of the 106th Congress, to consider any bill
or amendment that raises the level of emergency spending for
agriculture above the level contained in this Agriculture
appropriations bill as of the adoption of the above described
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens for agreeing to
this amendment. I realize that there are legitimate emergencies, but I
remind my colleagues that in the last 2 years we have had $16.6 billion
of agricultural emergencies. This amendment does not guarantee that we
are not going to have more. But it certainly strengthens the ability of
those who want to draw the line and say that enough is enough.
So I support this agreement. I thank Senator Stevens and Senator
Cochran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens as well. I thank
Senator Cochran and others who helped craft this agreement--Senator
Kohl. Because the fact is, there are real disasters and real
emergencies. In my State where, on June 12, 20 inches of rain fell in
36 hours, 1 week later 8 inches of rain fell in 6 hours. It gave us
this headline in the biggest paper in our State: ``Swamped.'' It says
it all. A disaster of stunning proportions costing hundreds of millions
of dollars in the major city of our State--1.7 million acres of land,
of cropland, devastated. This is an emergency. It is a disaster. It
must be addressed.
Through this amendment we will begin the process of healing. I thank
all those who participated in this agreement.
I do want to answer the Senator from Texas when he says we have had
$14 billion of emergencies in the last 2 years. The underlying reason
is a failure----
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Chamber?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and I thank very much my colleague
from West Virginia.
The reason we have had to have substantial emergency spending is
because of the failure of the last farm bill. The last farm bill
represents unilateral disarmament. While our major competitors, the
Europeans, are spending $50 billion a year to support their producers,
we, on average, were spending $10 billion under the previous farm bill.
We cut it in half on the notion that the Europeans would follow our
good example.
What a foolish tactic. We would never do that in a military
confrontation, engage in unilateral disarmament. But it is precisely
what we did with respect to a trade confrontation.
Agriculture has been in deep trouble and we have responded. Congress,
the administration, and we thank our colleagues, for that response. But
now we have been hit by unprecedented natural disasters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. I want to get the
Senate back to order.
I ask colleagues take conversations off the floor and take them to
the Cloakroom. Please take your conversations to the Cloakroom.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Again, I thank the courtesy of the Chair.
We have been hit by unprecedented natural disasters. This body has
been generous in responding, whether it was in North Dakota or New
Mexico. I just hope we do not ever lose that generosity of spirit in
this country because none of us can predict who might be hit next.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for working on
this with me and the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture
Committee and all those who helped put an agreement together, including
Ted Stevens, Senator Stevens, and those who helped him. I really
believe the discussion tonight was a very good one. Whether or not it
means anything in the weeks and months to come, who knows? But,
frankly, I am fully aware in that list there are some items that are
really natural disasters, or disasters of one sort or another that we
would compensate for. I just believe that at some point or another in
the field of agriculture, and on the agricultural bill, at some point
in time adding

[[Page S7357]]

emergencies has to kind of end. I submit there would be more than this
if it would be 2 weeks from now when the agricultural bill came up.

That is my point. I really have a lot of faith and confidence in Thad
Cochran and his minority ranking member. But I frankly believe sooner
or later we ought to just face up and add to the budget and not
continue to add emergencies when they are not emergencies. And
certainly many of them were. I did not have a chance to look at it
thoroughly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I regret to tell my friend from Texas--I have told him
informally, but I will tell him formally now--we have a staggering
disaster going on in Alaska right now. It is the total collapse of the
fish runs in the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers that sustain a substantial
number of our native villages. If this is not in this bill now, it
might come in in conference, but it is going to come up sometime before
this year is out. I just want to put the Senate on notice. I was
talking here about the agriculture items that are in this bill now. But
I do not feel bound not to represent my State later, in terms of trying
to protect these people who live in rural Alaska.
I talked today to James Lee Witt who is the Federal Emergency
Management Agency Director. He told me the President had asked him to
work with all existing agencies to try to find out what could be done
under existing law and with existing funds to deal with a disaster that
is taking place as we speak. We will not know, probably, until we come
back in September, what will be required. But we do expect to have some
substantial problems with this disaster within the coming 5 or 6 weeks.
I hope my friend understands what I am saying to him. In this
agreement we just made, that, to me, does not include the fisheries
disaster that is going on now in Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank Senators Cochran and Kohl for staying with
this issue for those of us who represent States with true disasters,
true emergencies, that were not represented in the bill as it came to
the Senate. We have had the worst outbreak of fire blight in our apple
industry in the history of the State of Michigan. Our Governor has
requested that Secretary of Agriculture Glickman grant a disaster
designation for seven counties in Michigan that have been afflicted by
fire blight.
I ask unanimous consent that this request be printed in the Record
along with two newspaper articles.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

State of Michigan,

Office of the Governor,

Lansing, MI, June 30, 2000.

Governor Requests Disaster Designation for Fruit Growers in South and
Southwest Michigan

Governor John Engler announced today that he has requested
a United States Department of Agriculture Disaster
Designation for fruit growers in South and Southeast
Michigan.
Fruit trees in that region suffered from a very severe
storm that brought hail, high winds and heavy rain on May 18.
That severe weather caused small wounds and scars on the
leaves, limbs, and fruit of apple, cherry, apricot, plum,
pear and peach trees. In the case of apples and pears, these
wounds allowed the bacteria known as fire blight to enter the
tree. This bacteria quickly infects the limbs, killing the
leaves and fruit, eventually making its way into the roots,
killing the entire tree.
It is estimated that over 2,000 acres of apple trees in the
counties of Allegan, Berrien, Branch, Cass, Hillsdale,
Kalamazoo and Van Buren are dead or dying, with another 5,400
acres showing severe symptoms of this insidious disease. This
is the area to be covered by Governor Engler's disaster
designation request.
____

State of Michigan,

Office of the Governor,

Lansing, MI, June 29, 2000.
Hon. Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture, Administration Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Glickman: A natural disaster has occurred in
Michigan that will result in production and physical losses
in fruit crops and fruit trees for the year 2000. Consistent
with USDA policy, I am hereby alerting you within the
required 90 day time period that such a condition exists.
The month of May was wet and humid throughout Southwest
Michigan. More than five inches of rain fell in May alone and
15 days in May saw relative humidity above 80%. On top of
this weather, a severe thunderstorm hit the area on May 18,
2000, bringing high winds very heavy rain, and hail. This
storm caused severe damage to fruit trees and the fruit crop
in the region. This damage was exacerbated when a bacterium,
fire blight, took hold in apple and pear trees. This fire
blight infection was directly related to the May 18, 2000,
storm inasmuch as the hard rain and hail scarred and wounded
the leaves, limbs and fruit of apple and pear trees, creating
an avenue for the fire blight disease to enter the trees.
The following counties were affected: Allegan, Berrien,
Branch, Cass, Hillsdale, Kalamzaoo, Van Buren.
This disaster affected apples, sweet and tart cherries,
apricots, plums, pears and peaches. Only apples and pears
were affected by the resulting fire blight.
Damage assessment information will be forwarded to your
office by the Michigan Farm Service Agency as soon as it
available. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John Engler,
Governor.

Mr. LEVIN. We are always the No. 2 or No. 3 state in terms of apple
production. Every year we vie with New York for who comes in second
after the State of Washington. But our apple industry has suffered
major devastation in southwestern Michigan. We have had the largest
problem with fire blight in the history of our State. It is a true
disaster. It seems to me some people just look at the whole and ignore
the parts. They also have a responsibility of looking at the parts. Our
part was a disaster which we addressed in the form of an amendment
providing relief on June 19. Senator Collins and 12 bipartisan
cosponsors joined this amendment. I thank them very much for their
assistance. We cover potatoes as well as apples because there has been
an honest to goodness disaster emergency amongst potato growers as
well.
I once again, thank the managers of this bill. I know how difficult
this is. Those of us who represent States that had emergencies that
were not reflected in the bill, as it came to the Senate, counted on
the managers and our colleagues to do justice for our emergencies in
the same way this bill, as it came to the Senate, addressed emergencies
in other States.
We are deeply grateful to the managers. We thank Senator Stevens and
others who were able to work out this agreement so our true disaster
could be taken care of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and
the Senator from Wisconsin, and others, including the Senator from
Alaska and my colleagues who have agreed to a compromise.
The history of disaster aid in this Congress is well over a century
old. This is not a new issue. For well over a century, Congress has
dealt with the issue of disasters that have occurred in some parts of
this country.
I am proud of supporting disaster aid for areas of this country that
suffer earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, floods, and tornadoes. In the
case of the fires that recently ravaged and injured so many people and
their property in New Mexico, I am proud to say that I wanted us to
help them, and we did. I am proud to say I helped the folks in Los
Angeles who were flattened by earthquakes, and the folks in Texas who
have been injured by drought.
It is one of those areas of public spending where I say it is the
best this country has to offer. When a region of this country, when its
people are flat on their backs from causes that they could not control,
this Congress extends its hand and says to them: You are not alone. We
want to help you. We have a long tradition of doing that, and I am
proud of that tradition.
In North Dakota, as my colleague indicated, late one night in June,
several thunderstorms converged together and then did not move. In a
State that gets 17 inches of rainfall in a year, in one spot they
received 18 to 20 inches in 36 hours. Think of that. About a week and a
half later, the Red River Valley, land that is dead flat, flat as a
table top, received 8 inches of rain in 6 hours. They were flooded. Up
to 1.7 million acres of farmland that people planted in the spring with
the sweat of their brow and risked their money to plant were either
destroyed or severely damaged.

[[Page S7358]]

We ask Congress to recognize that this, too, is a natural disaster
for those producers and people who live in those areas. That is what
this is about. None of us in this Chamber should ever be bashful about
saying there are people in need in this country, and when that need
exists because of causes they did not control or could not control--
fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods--then we should respond.
It represents the very best impulse, in my judgment, of this body.
That is what this debate is about. From our standpoint, it is
especially about family farmers. As I said earlier today, they are some
of the best in this country. They risk their money. They hope for a
good crop. So many things are beyond their control. Then they discover
that late one night a hailstorm comes through, and the crops are
devastated; or a flood inundates their crops; or a drought dries them
up; or the insects come and eat them out; or disease comes and their
crop is gone. That is what this is about.
Mr. President, those tonight who worked for a solution to add some
emergency funding to this piece of legislation have done those in need
in this country a service. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are getting to a point where we are
winding down on this bill. We have several more amendments, probably
less than five. Some of those will be disposed of with the managers'
good work. I think we should take a few minutes to see where we are.
Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 3980

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mrs.
Boxer, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3980.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration of
this amendment, which is not on the unanimous consent----
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I
know a lot of Senators on both sides are wondering about the
proceedings at this time. I understand there are at least a couple of
amendments that may take a few minutes. And then, of course, we are not
sure at this point whether they would require a recorded vote or not,
and then final passage.
We still hope to get an agreement that would allow us to go to the
marriage penalty tonight, and have an hour of debate on that, and then
continue on that tomorrow. And beyond that, we will have to get an
agreement worked out.
I urge my colleagues to, if they will, agree to time limits and
cooperate with the managers as much as they can. We need to finish this
bill in the next 30 minutes, if we can, and get an agreement on how we
proceed for the rest of tonight, tomorrow, and Monday.
So I withdraw my reservation. And I thank Senator Durbin for allowing
me to do that at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is in order.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the effect of the provision prohibiting amendment
of part 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations)

In section 3102, after the first sentence insert the
following: ``This section does not limit the authority of the
Secretary to promulgate final rules, or to revise or amend
subpart 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, so as
to require full financial assurance of reclamation of mining
sites to protect the taxpayers from the actions of hardrock
mining operations that cause damage to or destruction of
public land; to prevent environmental destruction that unduly
threatens fish or wildlife habitat; and to prevent pollution
that threatens public health or the environment.''.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, section 3102 of the Agriculture
appropriations bill does not address the production of food and fiber
in America. It does not address any jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture. It is a provision which has been added to this bill which
relates directly to hard rock mining in the United States, which is
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
I might say, parenthetically, I found it very interesting listening
to this debate on the Ag appropriations bill, and considering some of
the comments that have been made on the Senate floor in the past year
about limiting the subject matter of amendments and the substance of
legislation.
If we can consider an Amtrak amendment on the Ag appropriations bill,
and if we can consider an amendment on hard rock mining on the Ag
appropriations bill, then those who come before us and say we have to
have purity in the amendments we are offering and considering on the
bill should remember this particular debate.
I was surprised to find that a point of order on a motion to strike,
based on that point of order, would not stand because of what I
consider to be a very thin connection to some language in the House
appropriations bill. But the Parliamentarian advised me of that. I
understand that is going to be the rule of the day around here. I
suppose that is what we will play by. I am sure each side will find an
advantage and disadvantage associated with that interpretation.
Allow me to address the amendment before us, and to try to do it in a
very concise way, knowing that everyone has waited a long time. I have
waited for 8\1/2\ hours to offer this amendment.
Let me say at the outset, we are dealing with the hard rock mining
industry. An effort is being made, with the language in this
Agriculture appropriations bill, to stop the Department of the Interior
from issuing new regulations to make sure that this industry follows
the best practices to protect the taxpayers of this country and the
environment.
To put it in perspective, just this May the Environmental Protection
Agency released its Toxics Release Inventory report. It identified the
hard rock mining industry in the United States as our Nation's largest
toxic polluter.
The mining industry released 3.5 billion pounds of toxic pollution in
1998. I will repeat that. The mining industry released 3.5 billion
pounds of toxic pollution in 1998. Almost half of all of the toxic
pollution in America comes from this industry, which is being protected
by this amendment in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines has identified 12,000 miles of American
streams and 180,000 acres of American lakes polluted by mining. The EPA
has listed 27 hard rock mines as Superfund sites. It is time for us to
update the 19-year-old regulations that protect public lands managed by
the BLM from the environmental impact of hard rock mining.
These regulations, commonly referred to as 3809 regulations, help the
BLM comply with Federal land policy. They direct the Secretary of the
Interior to ``take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue
degradation on the federal lands.''

Since these regulations were first promulgated in 1981, the whole
hard rock mining industry has changed in America. New technologies have
allowed the industry to expand tenfold. New exploration techniques have
resulted in capabilities unknown 20 years go. Larger excavation
equipment allows ores to be mined from larger and deeper pits and has
made open-pit mining feasible in areas where it would not have been
feasible before.
Just as the mining industry has modernized, so too should the
regulations that protect the environment and the taxpayers. Those who
would put this amendment in this bill are stopping the modernization of
those regulations designed to protect public lands, the environment,
and the taxpayers.
As I explain one aspect of this, you will understand that the
provision in this particular section of the Ag bill will result in
literally hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars,
of liability to the taxpayers of today and tomorrow.
The need to update these regulations has been recognized a long time.
The BLM established a task force in 1989 to look them over. President
Bush expected it to be done in short order, and it still has not
happened.
There has been a steady stream of reports. This is, as best we can
tell--this

[[Page S7359]]

rider introduced by Senators Murkowski and Craig--the fifth attempt in
4 years to block the Department of the Interior from implementing
stronger environmental regulations on hard rock mining.
Last year, there was a compromise. The compromise said we are not
just going to give this assignment to the Department of Interior. We
are going to give it to a group, the National Research Council, that is
associated with the National Academy of Sciences and ask them to come
up with recommendations for new regulations on this industry to protect
the environment. In fact, what this particular rider does, this
environmental rider on this Ag bill, is to stop the implementation of
most of the recommendations that came forward from the National
Research Council.
Let me tell the Senate why we need stronger regulations. First, any
group that starts to mine on these public lands usually has to post a
bond. It is a financial assurance that their activities on these lands
will not in any way destroy the environment, and that ultimately the
land will be reclaimed and the stabilization and vegetation of the land
will be restored. Sadly, in many instances, these hard rock mining
companies will post bonds that are literally worthless, corporate
bonds, for example, and when the company goes bankrupt, they are of no
value or little value at all. I will give a few examples a little later
on of where these bonds have failed us and we have found the taxpayers
holding the bag.
Reclamation bonds are meant to ensure that companies do not declare
bankruptcy and leave taxpayers responsible for the cleanup bill. The
current bonding requirements don't work. In example after example, in
Idaho, in Montana, in South Dakota, we find that these companies have
gone bankrupt, the bonds don't cover the expenses, and the taxpayers
end up holding the bag. The recommendation from the National Research
Council, which I hold here, was that we change that assurance, that
financial assurance to protect the taxpayers. This environmental rider
stops that reform. It makes certain that the taxpayers don't have that
protection.
A recent study by the National Wildlife Federation and the Center for
Science and Public Participation found that American taxpayers are
facing as much as $1.1 billion in liability for restoring hard rock
mines in the Western U.S. because current reclamation bonding
regulations are inadequate. In Nevada alone, as of 1999, 13 mines have
gone bankrupt. As of May 2000, at least 29 mines are bankrupt. Most of
these mines were bonded by corporate guarantees. Just one single mine,
the Yerington mine, could cost American taxpayers up to $40 to $80
million to clean up. The effort to put real bonding requirements in the
law to protect the taxpayers and the environment will be stopped by
this environmental rider.
Also, there is a question of environmental performance standards.
These standards have to be adjusted to reflect modern mining practices.
Let me give an example. One technique that is now being used, heap
leaching, is increasingly common. Millions of tons of ore are extracted
and piled in heaps on lined pads often hundreds of feet high. This post
illustrates what I am discussing. To give Senators an idea of what we
are talking about, this is a hard rock mining site. To put it in
perspective, we can barely see this tiny dot down here, a large over-
the-road truck, to give an idea of the heaps of ore. Under the heap
leaching process, a cyanide solution for gold or silver or sulfuric
acid for copper is sprayed in open air over the pile so that ultimately
it will leach the mineral from the ore. As I said earlier, it is this
use of cyanide and sulfuric acid that has led to hard rock mining being
the No. 1 toxic polluter in the United States of America.

The mining industry has released 3.5 billion pounds of toxic
pollution in 1998. In addition, we have to say that many of these
agencies, like BLM and the Forest Service, need to have the right to
deny mining in highly sensitive areas, particularly areas that are
adjacent to national forests, national parks, and populated areas where
they can cause great damage.
Let me tell my colleagues about one particular mine as an example,
the Zortman-Landusky mine in Montana. The Zortman-Landusky mine is
located in the Little Rocky Mountains of north central Montana. ZL is
an open-pit mine, one of the world's first large-scale cyanide heap
leach gold mines and the largest gold mine in Montana when operations
began in 1979. Lack of standards on pad construction allowed the
company to overload its leach pads leading to cyanide releases in the
nearby streams and potential health problems for the local communities.
The Canadian Pacific company, Pegasus Gold, Incorporated, that owned
the mine, went bankrupt in 1998. It left a bond to protect the damage
it had created in the amount of $61.9 million. The actual cleanup cost
for this site is estimated at approximately $70 million, leaving nearly
$8.6 million to be picked up by the taxpayers.
I would like to read for you for a moment a comment not from an
environmental group, not from some eastern group of tree huggers, if
you will, but from the Daily Missoulian. This is an editorial, Sunday,
August 29, 1999, Missoula, MT. Referring to this particular mine, in
their editorial entitled ``Miners Offer Regulators Some Hard Lessons
from Montana''--my friends, the Western States where these mines are
located:

Pegasus' bankruptcy has been an eye-opening experience for
State regulators. Among the lessons learned:
It's a mistake to assume the companies that develop mines
will stay around--or even exist--when it comes time to clean
the mines up.
Reclamation plans that presume miners will reclaim their
own mines understate the actual cost when miners go out of
business or skip out. Everything becomes more expensive when
the state has to hire contractors for the work.

The third lesson directly impacts the environmental rider which we
are considering on this bill:

Reclamation bonds required to insure cleanup may not be
worth as much as expected. At least some of the insurance
companies that issue reclamation bonds would rather fight
than pay, forcing the state to rack up legal expenses or
accept lesser settlements.

It goes on to say:

Look hard around the state [of Montana], and you won't find
a single example of a large-scale hard-rock mine successfully
reclaimed.
Taxpayers and the environment aren't the only losers when
the reclamation plants go awry. Miners haven't done their
industry any favors, either. Mining is controversial enough,
even when people focus on jobs and profits. Leaving citizens
in the State with big messes and big bills to pay after the
mines play out is a good way to wear out your welcome.

Incidentally, in this same Missoula, MT, editorial, they go on to
praise the coal mining in the State which has modernized its practices
and is considered more responsible by these editorial writers.
Because the hour is late, I will not go through the five or six
examples that I have of mines in Idaho, in South Dakota, which have
literally been abandoned because of bankruptcy, leaving the taxpayers
holding the bag for millions, almost $1 billion in liability.

This environmental rider stops the Department from coming up with
meaningful bonds. Quite honestly, it means that those who exploit
public lands and leave an environmental mess behind and threats to the
public health frankly make a fool out of Uncle Sam and American
taxpayers. That is what this environmental rider does.
I say to my colleagues in the Senate, as I close, what I am offering
in this amendment is as follows: We should give the Bureau of Land
Management and the Department of the Interior the authority to
promulgate rules which will require full financial assurance of
reclamation of mining sites. I state specifically the goals that we are
seeking: To protect the taxpayers from the actions of hard rock mining
operations that cause damage to or destruction of public lands, to
prevent environmental destruction that unduly threatens fish or
wildlife habitat, and to prevent toxic pollution that threatens public
health or the environment.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator respond to a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to respond.
Mr. JOHNSON. I represent a western gold mining State. I have just
returned recently from examining the Brohm site in the beautiful Black
Hills of South Dakota where the Brohm Mining Company has gone bankrupt
with approximately a $5 million bond. That site has now been declared a
Superfund

[[Page S7360]]

site. It is now going to cost the Federal taxpayers approximately $27
million because of the inadequacy of the bond at this site. It is going
to cost the taxpayers of the State of South Dakota in perpetuity tens
of millions of dollars to monitor the streams and the environment
around that bankrupt site.
Is the Senator telling us that without the amendment he is offering
here, we will continue to see these inadequate bonds and these costs
being shifted to the taxpayers to pick up the cost of mining
companies--oftentimes foreign mining companies--that have spoiled our
land and then walk on?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from South Dakota is absolutely correct. I
think it is important that a Senator from a State where this mining is
taking place has come to share this story. This is not just testimony
presented by environmental groups. These are the real-life
circumstances of people in Western States, where the mining is taking
place, who are left with a mess when the mines go bankrupt.
This environmental rider stops us from revising and reforming the
financial assurance language and requiring bonds of companies that
literally will protect the communities and the taxpayers and families
around these mining sites. That is what it is all about. That is the
bottom line.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues in the Senate. I have waited for
a long time to offer this. I will not belabor it. I hope they will join
me in passing this amendment, which will establish standards which I
think are reasonable to make sure this industry can continue but only
in a responsible way.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Mr.
Durbin to amend Section 3102 of the Agriculture Appropriation bill.
Section 3102 is the latest edition in a series of riders that have
prevented the Clinton Administration from reforming hardrock mining on
public lands by putting in place sound environmental and fiscal
protections. In past debates, proponents of these riders have argued
that the hardrock mining industry has reformed its ways. They
acknowledge that mining companies have made mistakes in the past. How
could they not? The facts are overwhelming: More than 300,000 acres of
federal lands have not been reclaimed. There are more than 2,000
abandoned mines in national parks. There are 59 Superfund sites at
former mines across the country. The Mineral Policy Center estimates
that the cleanup costs for abandoned mines on public and private lands
may reach $72 billion. But after acknowledging this legacy of
environmental damage, the proponents of these riders argue it is the
result of decisions made 50 or 60 years ago--before we knew better--
before we understood that there a limits to what the environment can
withstand. They tells us that a new environmental consciousness,
sensitivity and awareness have taken root in the industry, and today's
mines are safe because they utilize modern technology and practices.
This is an important point, Mr. President. It deserves a response.
I'm not out to punish the mining industry for mistakes of the past. I
recognize that the mining industry has made improvements and that not
all mining operations result in environmental disaster. The March 2000
National Geographic has an excellent article on the hardrock mining
industry. It discusses the history of the mining in the West, its
cultural heritage, its economic contribution, and its unfortunate
legacy of environmental ruin. It also talks about some of the new
efforts underway to lessen mining's impact on the environment. It
describes Homestake Mining Company's McLaughlin gold mine near Lower
Lake, California as a safe mine. The McLaughlin operation recycles and
contains all processed water, the 600-acre tailings pond will
eventually be converted into wetlands, and a monitoring system watches
for contamination of ground water. Sierra Club and the Mineral Policy
Center--two groups sharply and appropriately critical of mining
operations--have praised this operation. Homestake's environmental
manager at the site told National Geographic that, ``When you look at
the total environmental cost, it's roughly 2 percent of our capital
costs for the whole project. We want to protect the our stockholders'
investment. Creating an environmental liability doesn't serve their
interests or ours.''
I am confident that McLaughlin is not the only operation that is
working and caring for the land, but it's just not true to say that the
entire industry is reformed. There are bad actors and mistakes happen,
and that is why we need tougher standards.
I urge my colleagues to look at the record of the Hecla Mining
Company's Grouse Creek Mine in the Salmon-Challis National Forest in
Idaho. The Grouse Creek Mine opened in 1994 with great expectations. It
was precisely the kind of operation we've heard about on the
Senate floor: a new mine operated under a new environmental ethic, and
presumably an example of why we don't need tougher protections. In
August 1995, Mr. Michael White, the Vice President and General Counsel
of the Hecla Mining Company, testified before the Senate that, ``The
Grouse Creek Mine is a state-of-the-art facility and has been
constructed not only to meet, but to exceed, existing environmental
requirements.'' Mr. White continued, ``For example, road improvements
that included sediment catch basins actually reduced sediment impact to
Jordan Creek compared to preexisting conditions.'' Let me be clear: Mr.
White promised us a state-of-the-art facility that would exceed
existing environmental requirements, and he went even further to
promise that the Grouse Creek Mine would actually improve the
environment by reducing the sediment runoff into Jordan Creek. Hecla's
chairman, Arthur Brown, said in 1995 of Grouse Creek that, ``Minimizing
the environmental impact is a strong focus of Hecla.'' A Hecla company
spokeswoman said in 1995, ``We believe that we need to take care of the
land we are using; it's just good stewardship.'' The former Governor of
Idaho, Cecil Andrus added his praise, saying ``Hecla has met every
requirement we've asked of them. I can show you a thousand sins of the
past that we need to clean up but modern mining is a plus.'' And the
accolades continued: The Idaho Department of Lands nominated the mine
for an award, and Hecla employees were honored by the US Department of
Agriculture for their environmental work.

It is now only 6 years latter, and Grouse Creek is an environmental
disaster. In 1996--only two years after the mine opened-- the
Environmental Protection Agency fined Hecla $85,000 for violating its
wastewater permit. EPA found cyanide and mercury discharges that
exceeded their limits by more than five times the allowed levels for
over a year, and the mine was cited for excessive sediment discharge
into Jordan Creek. In April 1999, Idaho officials found cyanide leaking
into a stream that is habitat for the endangered chinook salmon,
steelhead trout and bull trout. The cyanide levels were more than 12
times the concentrations at which chronic exposure harms fish. The
environmental legacy of the now-closed mine is a tailings impoundment
holding 450 million gallons of cyanide-laced water and 4.3 million tons
of heavy metals. Can you imagine? The General Counsel of Hecla, Michael
Smith, actually testified before the Senate in 1995 that the mine would
actually improve the environmental quality of Jordan Creek. Within less
than five years the operation was cited for loading Jordan Creek with
excessive sediments and cyanide. The fiscal legacy is just as bad. A
May editorial in the Idaho Falls Post Register reports that Hecla may
walk away from the environmental mess it has created if the cost of
cleanup exceeds $28 million. Before opening the mine, Hecla was only
required to put up a bond of $7 million, and the company reported $120
million in losses before closing the mine. Maybe Hecla will reclaim the
land, maybe it won't--it's too early to judge that issue--but clearly a
system that allows part of a national forest to be turned into a toxic
waste site, and leaves us negotiating cleanup, is in need of reform.
And, Mr. President, more importantly, this didn't happen 50 years ago
or 60 years ago. It happen 6 years ago.
Grouse Creek isn't the only unfortunate example of the ``modern''
mining industry's environmental troubles. The Phelps Dodge Mining
Corporation's Chino copper mine near Santa Rita, New Mexico has dumped
more than 180 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into
Whitewater Creek since 1987. In 1990, rainwater flushed 324,000

[[Page S7361]]

gallons of wastewater out of the Ray Complex mine site and into the
Gila River in Arizona. Shortly after opening in 1986 the Summitville
gold mine in southern Colorado began leaking cyanide, acid and heavy
metals into 17 miles of the Alamosa River. Its owner is now bankrupt,
the mine closed and the land has been declared a Superfund site.
We need reform. Today's debate is not about sins of the past or
punishing the mining industry. It is about ending a system that sells
public land for as little as $2.50 per acre. A system that has allowed
more than $240 billion worth of minerals to be excavated from public
lands and does not collect a cent in royalties. A system that, despite
all the excuses and promises, continues to allow the land to be
damaged. We should not have to depend on the goodwill of the mining
industry to protect public land--the rules should be clear, they should
be strong and they should be enforced. American citizens should not
carry the burden of fiscal and environmental irresponsibility.
I thank Senator Durbin for moving to amend the hardrock mining rider.
I urge other my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, under rule XVI of the Senate, this is
legislation on an appropriations bill. I raise a point of order against
it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I raise the defense of germaneness, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The Chair submits to the Senate the question, Is the amendment
germane?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs.
Murray) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 56, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

YEAS--36

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--56

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--7

Boxer
Bunning
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Murray
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the ayes are 36, the nays are 56.
The judgment of the Senate is that the amendment is not germane. The
amendment falls.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have two amendments, one of which I am
not going to offer.
I have an amendment which establishes the Trade Injury Compensation
Act of 2000. This measure is identical to my bill, S. 2709, which
enjoys wide bipartisan support by my fellow members of Senate Beef
Caucus and has already been referred to the Senate Agriculture
Committee.
The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a Beef Industry
Compensation Trust Fund to help the United States cattle industry
withstand the European Union's illegal ban on beef treated with
hormones.
Over a year ago, the World Trade Organization endorsed retaliation
when the EU refused to open to American beef. Since that time, the EU
has continued to stall in its compliance which is frankly, outrageous.
For over a decade we've fought the beef battle. Now its time to try
something new to help producers who continue to be injured by the ban.
The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using
the tariffs imposed on the EU to directly aid U.S. beef producers.
Normally, the additional tariff revenues received from retaliation go
to the Treasury. This bill establishes a trust fund so that the
affected industry will receive those revenues as compensation for its
injury.
Mr. President, my amendment creates a fund which provides assistance
to United States beef producers to improve the quality of beef produced
in the United States; and provides assistance to United States beef
producers in market development, consumer education, and promotion of
the beef industry in overseas markets.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall cease the transfer of funds
equivalent to the duties on the beef retaliation list only when the
European Union complies with the World Trade Organization ruling
allowing United States beef producers access to the European market.
In a perfect world we would not need this amendment because the
European Union would abide by its international trade commitments. And
it is still my hope that the European Union simply comply with the WTO
Dispute Settlement rulings and allow our beef to enter its borders.
Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that
sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow.
We all recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of
my colleagues, are working on ways to fix it. We must bring credibility
and compliance to the system. The Trade Injury Compensation Act will
give some relief to our producers as we strive toward this endeavor.
Mr. President, I realize that we still have work to do in perfecting
this amendment. That is why I appreciate my colleague Senator Lugar's
commitment to allow an Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on this bill in
September.
In light of that impending hearing, I will not offer the amendment at
this time.
Time is of the essence for our producers who have been injured by the
European Union. I look forward to this hearing and further expeditious
action in this matter.

Amendment No. 3981

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

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment
numbered 3981.

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

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct a restudy of
the project for navigation, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, to
evaluate alternatives to the authorized inlet stabilization project at
Oregon Inlet)

Strike section 3104 and insert the following:

SEC. 3104. STUDY OF OREGON INLET, NORTH CAROLINA, NAVIGATION
PROJECT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, shall have
conducted, and submited to Congress, a restudy of the project
for navigation, Manteo (Shallowbag)

[[Page S7362]]

Bay, North Carolina, authorized by section 101 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), to evaluate all
reasonable alternatives, including nonstructural
alternatives, to the authorized inlet stabilization project
at Oregon Inlet.
(b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary of the Army shall--
(1) take into account the views of affected interests; and
(2)(A) take into account objectives in addition to
navigation, including--
(i) complying with the policies of the State of North
Carolina regarding construction of structural measures along
State shores; and
(ii) avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to, or
benefiting, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Pea
Island National Wildlife Refuge; and
(B) develop options that meet those objectives.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to by my
good friend, the ever gracious senior Senator from North Carolina.
The amendment strikes the provision in the bill that transfers
portions of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge from the Department of the Interior to the
Army Corps of Engineers. It also requires the Army Corps to conduct a
study within 180 days of alternatives, including nonstructural
alternatives, to the currently authorized inlet stabilization project
at Oregon Inlet. This study would have to take into account objectives
in addition to navigation, such as the policies of the State of North
Carolina regarding construction of structural measures along the coast
and minimizing adverse impacts to the national seashore and the
wildlife refuge. Most importantly, the study would have to develop
recommendations to meet those objectives. I hope this study will
provide a sound basis on which Congress can resolve this issue.
I believe this amendment will be fair to the people of North Carolina
and also to the American taxpayers.
The senior Senator from North Carolina has been very helpful in
working out this amendment. I appreciate his efforts.
Mr. President, to reiterate, my amendment would replace section 3104
of the bill, which transfers land from the Interior Department of the
Corps of Engineers in order to circumvent environmental rules and
promote the construction of a system of jetties at Oregon Inlet in
North Carolina.
Some background about the Oregon Inlet project.
At the outset, let me acknowledge the obvious. I'm no expert about
Oregon Inlet.
Senator Helms is. He has been working on this issue for at least 30
years.
I am simply trying to react to an appropriations rider by mustering
the facts as well as I can.
Oregon Inlet is on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, near Roanoke
Island. It is the only inlet between Cape Henry, Virginia, 45 miles to
the north and Cape Hatteras, 85 miles to the south.
Like much of the Outer Banks, the Inlet is a dynamic ecosystem, with
high waves, swift currents, and a rapidly shifting sandbar at the mouth
of the Inlet.
Make no mistake. It is treacherous water. Between 1965 and 1995, more
than 20 ships sank or ran aground, with the loss of 22 lives.
I should not, though, that all but one of the deaths occurred before
the early 1980s, when the Corps began a dredging program.
In 1970, at the urging of Senator Helms, Congress enacted legislation
authorizing the Corps of Engineers to construct a jetty system at
Oregon Inlet.
Specifically, the Corps was directed to deepen the navigation channel
through the Inlet from 14 feet to 20 feet and to maintain that channel
with two jetties.
It gets more complicated. And much has changed since 1970.
The jetties would prevent the natural flow of sand from north to
south. That flow is what replenishes Pea Island, a national wildlife
refuge which otherwise would erode.
To counteract this effect, the system includes a system of pipes and
pumps that will transport 2 million cubic feet of sand each year.
All told the project will cost American taxpayers $108 million to
construct and about $6 million a year to maintain. We all know it will
cost more than that.
The project would be built on: The northern part, on the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore; and the southern part on the Pea Island
Wildlife Refuge.
Therefore, before the Corps can build the project, it must get
permits from the Interior Department, confirming that the project will
be compatible with the Seashore and the Refuge.
The provision that has been included in the Agriculture
appropriations bill, as section 3104, effectively eliminates this
permit requirement. It transfers the land from the Interior Department
to the Corps, so that permits no longer are necessary.
Those are the basic facts.
Now, some of you listening may be scratching your head, wondering
what's going on here. After all, the project was authorized in 1970.
Thirty years later, it still hasn't been built. That, you might be
thinking, is unacceptable. It's probably because of Government red
tape.
Maybe it's high time we cut through all the red tape and move this
project along, as the bill would do.
An understandable reaction, if you just look at this on the surface.
But, as is often the case, if you dig a little deeper, and get past the
surface, it's not that simple.
The principal reason that the project has not been built is that the
project is very questionable and very controversial. Many have argued
that the project will cause great environmental harm and waste more
than one hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money.
Time after time, Interior Secretaries have refused to grant the
necessary permits. Including I should note, President Reagan's Interior
Secretary, James Watt.
The only exception was when Secretary Lujan granted a permit towards
the end of the Bush Administration. Soon after taking office, Secretary
Babbitt reversed the decision.
Also time after time, the environmental impact statements developed
by the Corps have been found to be inadequate, and the Corps has been
sent back to the drawing board.
As we speak, the process continues. The Corps has been asked to
revise its latest Environmental Impact Statement, to address what the
National Marine Fisheries Service called ``significant errors and
inadequacies.''
As I understand it, the revised EIS will be submitted to Corps
headquarters around the end of this month and issued in August.
After that, the Corps can move ahead and again seek permits from the
Interior Department. If there is a dispute, it will be resolved by the
White House.
Section 3104 of the bill circumvents this process by transferring the
land and therefore eliminating the need for any permits.
Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the concerns of Senator Helms and
others who support this project. I know that they're frustrated that
this project has drawn on too long.
But I believe that the approach taken in the bill has four main
faults.
The first goes to process. The provision in the bill is, simply put,
a rider. It is authorizing legislation, properly within the
jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
This is a controversial issue; it has been debated, back and forth,
for thirty years. It should be resolved on the merits, with input from
the committee of jurisdiction. It should not be resolved as a rider on
an unrelated appropriations bill.
The second fault is that the bill may cause serious environmental
harm.
This is, again, a dynamic ecosystem. Always shifting. Always
changing.
As this chart shows, there have been major changes in the geography
of Oregon Inlet over the years. The Inlet itself has shifted south by
about 80 feet a year, which amounts to more than two miles since the
Inlet opened in 1848.
In the middle of this dynamic, shifting system, the project would
construct a pair of rock jetties that are a total of more than 3 miles
long.
That poses two big risks.
In the first place, we'll be altering the natural system by which the
ocean erodes and then replenishes the barrier islands along the coast.
As it now stands, each year, tons of sand shift, mostly from north to
south, replenishing Pea Island. The jetties will block most of that
sand from shifting naturally. To compensate, the Corps plans to pump
about 2 million

[[Page S7363]]

cubic feet of sand each year, that will be trapped above the north
jetty, through a large pipeline, and unload it below the south jetty.
Maybe it will work. But what if it doesn't?
Consider what happened on Assateague Island. 60 years ago, we
constructed a jetty. It blocked the sand from replenishing the southern
part of the island. Since then, the coastline has eroded about one-half
mile.
Another thing. We'll alter the natural flow of water through what is
now a broad, relatively shallow inlet leading to Albermarle and Pamlico
Sounds. The Sounds contain important and productive habitats for
several species of fish, including Spanish mackerel, Atlantic croaker,
and gray trout.
These fish spawn at sea. The larval fish then migrate into the calm
waters of the sounds where they grow until they're strong enough to
return to the ocean.
It is not at all clear that these fish will be able to make it
through the jetties. The fishery biologists just aren't sure.
So we are taking major environmental risks.
The third major fault is that the economics don't add up.
True, the Corps projects an economic benefit, of about $37 million
over a 50 year period.
However, as we all know, the Corps' economic analysis has come under
heavy criticism lately.
In any event, many people have questioned the Corps' estimate of the
cost and benefits of this project
I am not talking about environmental groups, which, it might be
argued, have their own agenda.
I am talking about Taxpayers for Common Sense, and several
distinguished economists who have studied the project.
For example, Professor Richard Seldon, who I understand is a
distinguished professor emiritus at the University of Virginia, said
this:

My extremely conservative analysis of the Corps' data found
that rather than the almost $37 million of net benefits
claimed for the project by the Corps . . . this project will
have negative benefits of [more than $4 million]. In fact, I
believe the project is very likely to have a much worse
return on investment based on many costs thus far not
accounted for by the Corps.

In a letter sent to Senator Helms a few days ago, Professor Emeritus
Seldon said.

I am convinced that these jetties should not be built--not
for environmental reasons but simply because the benefits
claimed by the Corps are nowhere near as large as the likely
cost to taxpayers. This is a bad economic deal, even if we
forget about the environment.

The fourth fault is that I believe there's a better way.
Let me say again that I understand the frustration that Senator Helms
and others in North Carolina feel about this project.
They have serious concerns. One is safety. Again, these are
treacherous waters.
Another is economic development. As I understand it, this is an area
that could use the economic boost that increased fish landings might
provide.
I'm not going to stand here and say that environmental concerns
should prevail over safety and economic development. Not a all.
I don't buy that, whether we're talking about Montana, North
Carolina, or anyplace else. We have to strike a balance.
But here is the rub. There may be a better way.
We may be able to achieve all the benefits that would be achieved by
constructing the jetties, and do it much more cheaply and without the
environmental risks.
Here is how. By dredging a better channel.
We could direct the Corps to dredge the Inlet deeper and more often.
But there is a problem. In the most recent EIs the Corps has studied
only one non-structural alternative. One that would have more than
doubled this width of the channel. It's no surprise that the costs out-
weighed the benefits. So, for at least 30 years, we haven't fully
considered whether there's a better alternative to the jetty system.
In addition there are many more factors to consider--environmental,
recreational, and so forth--then there were in 1970.
That brings me to my amendment.
It deletes the provision in the bill that transfers the land, thereby
circumventing the permitting process.
Instead, the amendment requires that, within 180 days the Corps, must
evaluate alternatives to the jetty project, including dredging.
In doing so, the Corps must consider the views of affected interests,
must consider how various alternatives accord with North Carolina's
shoreline protection laws, and must minimize adverse environmental
effects.
Mr. President, pulling this all together, we need to do more to
improve safety at Oregon Inlet.
But the jetty system that we authorized in 1970 is an idea whose time
has probably gone.
We do not need 3 miles of granite rock jetties. We don't need 2 miles
of pipeline, to pump 2 million cubic feet of sand every year.
We do not need huge environmental risks.
We don't need to ask taxpayers to fork over $108 million.
Instead, we should step back, take stock, and see whether we can
solve the problems at Oregon Inlet in a way that avoids big
environmental risks and saves taxpayers' money.
Therefore, I urge colleagues to support my amendment.
I ask unanimous consent a statement of administration policy by the
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget
listing the Administration's strong objection to the underlying
provision in the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Administration Policy

s. 2536--agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration,
and related agencies appropriations bill, fy 2001--(sponsor: stevens
(r) ak)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the
Administration's views on the FY 2001 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, as reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Your consideration of the
Administration's views would be appreciated.
The President's FY 2001 budget is based on a balanced
approach that maintains fiscal discipline, eliminates the
national debt, extends the solvency of Social Security and
Medicare, provides for an appropriately sized tax cut,
establishes a new voluntary Medicare prescription drug
benefit in the context of broader reforms, expands health
care coverage to more families, and funds critical
investments for our future. An essential element of this
approach is ensuring adequate funding for discretionary
programs. To this end, the President has proposed
discretionary spending limits at levels that we believe are
necessary to serve the American people.
Unfortunately, the FY 2001 congressional budget resolution
provides inadequate resources for discretionary investments.
We need realistic levels of funding for critical government
functions that the American people expect their government to
perform well, including education, national security, law
enforcement, environmental protection, preservation of our
global leadership, air safety, food safety, economic
assistance for the less fortunate, research and technology,
and the administration of Social Security and Medicare. Based
on the inadequate budget resolution, this bill fails to
address critical needs of the American people.
The bill includes inadequate funding for food safety,
conservation and environmental programs, farm loans,
bioterrorism, agricultural research through competitive
grants and other important programs. In addition, there are a
number of objectionable language provisions in the Committee
bill.
It is our understanding that a substitute will be offered
to the supplemental title of the bill that will include a
number of highly objectionable environmental and other
riders, including a provision to facilitate construction of
the Oregon Inlet jetties prior to completion of a pending
environmental impact statement, restrictions that would
attempt to weaken pending hardrock mining regulations, and
other objectionable provisions. The Administration opposes
the bill in its current form. If such riders are included in
the bill, the President's senior advisers would recommend
that he veto the bill.

fy 2000 supplemental appropriations contained in this bill

Objectionable Legislative Riders--The Administration
opposes the environmental and other authorization provisions
contained in the bill, which are inappropriate for inclusion
in an appropriations act. Such riders rarely receive the
level of congressional and public review required of
authorization language, and they often override existing
environmental protections or impose unjustified micro-
management restrictions on agency activities.
More detailed views will be provided when the text of the
substitute is made available. Therefore, the views expressed
here are necessarily preliminary.
Oregon Inlet (NC) Jetties.--The Administration strongly
opposes the provision to remove lands from the Cape Hatteras
National

[[Page S7364]]

Seashore and the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, prior
to completion of a pending environmental impact statement
(EIS) on proposals to maintain navigation through Oregon
Inlet, N.C. This rider would undermine the EIS process by
selecting one option--the construction of a dual jetty and
sand transfer system--before a decision on alternatives can
be made. There remain significant questions about the long-
term environmental impacts and the economic justifications of
the dual jetty option, and those questions need to be
answered before considering any legislation to remove land
from a national park and a national wildlife refuge.
Restrictions on Hardrock Mining Regulations.--The
Administration strongly objects to the bill's attempt to
weaken pending final regulations on the management of
hardrock mining on public lands. These overdue regulations
are needed to address the major changes in technology and
mining industry practices since the regulations were last
updated in 1980. The proposed rider would also attempt to
reopen an agreement reached in negotiations on the FY 2000
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to allow
the final rule to go forward, as long as it was ``not
inconsistent'' with the recommendations of a recent National
Research Council (NRC) report. The rider would now attempt to
limit the rule to only a specific subset of the NRC report's
recommendations. By doing so, the rider could hinder the
effective regulation of industry practices (such as large-
scale cyanide leaching for gold on public lands) that have
become increasingly prevalent over the past 20 years.
Community Builders, Sec. 2602.--The Administration urges
deletion of the highly objectionable, micro-management
language in Section 2602, which would prohibit the Department
of Housing and Urban Development from hiring replacement
staff for 350 community builder positions.

* * * * *

Mr. BAUCUS. In addition, I ask that a letter from the organization
Taxpayers For Common Sense be printed in the Record. It is very much
opposed to the underlying provision and in favor of this amendment, as
well as a statement by Dr. Seldon, a very respected economist who
studied this issue extensively.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

July 20, 2000.
Re Baucus substitute amendment on Oregon Inlet

Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus: Taxpayers for Common Sense Action
thank you for your leadership in opposing the anti-taxpayer
Oregon Inlet rider that Senator Helms added to the
Agriculture Appropriations bill. TCS Action strongly supports
your substitute amendment to provide for an expedited Corps
of Engineers/Interior Department study of cheaper
alternatives. In addition, TCS supports commitment of a few
million dollars for improved interim dredging. TCS Action
will likely score the vote on this Baucus amendment on TCS
Action's annual Common Sense Taxpayer Scorecard.
As you know, the Oregon Inlet rider would transfer
federally-protected land from the Department of Interior to
the Corps of Engineers, thereby removing one of he last
remaining obstacles to construction of twin mile-long stone
jetties at a cost of $108 million. Anyone who has ever been
to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore on North Carolina's
famed Outer Banks understands intuitively that the Oregon
Inlet project would be a massive waste of taxpayer money.
Moreover, six major newspapers in North Carolina have
editorialized against the project. Typically, the Raleigh
(NC) News and Observer editorialized May 12:
``Decisions on the jetties properly have to be made on the
merits of arguments for and against them, not because
lawmakers have been intimidated by a tactic such as the one
Helms is attempting. And on those merits, despite supporter'
good intentions, the jetties shape up as an extraordinary
boondoggle.''
The anti-taxpayer rider is strongly opposed by a broad
coalition. Meanwhile, a 1999 independent review of the Corps'
benefit-cost analysis by Dr. Richard Selden of the University
of Virginia on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
demonstrated the project's benefits do not outweigh the
costs. The project will provide a $500,000 federal subsidy
for each of 215 charter or commercial fishing boats that will
purportedly benefit. Instead, routine channel dredging has
worked for the last 30 years. Surely, it is reasonable to
study all alternatives to the Oregon Inlet project before
giving the green light to this massive waste of taxpayer
money opposed by the last five administrations.
Thank you again for your leadership to propose a reasonable
compromise solution on this issue.
Sincerely,
Ralph DeGennaro,
President & CEO.
____

July 16, 2000.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: I write you as a staunch Republican and
a conservative economist who got his Ph.D. under Milton
Friedman at the University of Chicago. I am definitely not a
``tree hugger.'' I have never belonged to the Sierra Club or
any other activist environmental group.
I am writing because I'm concerned about your support for
the Corps of Engineers' proposal to build jetties at Oregon
Inlet. I know you have declared yourself in favor of this
project on many occasions, extending over many years, and I
can see the practical difficulty of withdrawing your support
at this juncture. Nevertheless, I am convinced that these
jetties should not be built--not for environmental reasons
but simply because the benefits claimed by the Corps are
nowhere near as large as the likely cost to taxpayers. This
is a bad economic deal, even if we forget about the
environment.
You may wonder whether there is a valid basis for my strong
negative opinion of the Corps' proposal. Last summer I did a
benefit/cost analysis of the proposal as a private consultant
hired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (You may wonder
about the objectivity of a study that was commissioned by an
agency that opposes the jetties. All I can say is that I
examined a ton of material on the proposal, and I tried to
apply accepted economic analysis to all of it, regardless of
the source.) My findings were clearcut and unambiguous: there
is no way these jetties can pass a standard benefit/cost
test.
You may also wonder whether my conclusions would be
accepted by most other fairminded economists. I would be glad
to have my work scrutinized by a neutral panel (assuming one
could be found!). But I can assure you with complete
confidence that the benefit/cost analysis provided by the
Corps is full of flaws and would be accepted as valid by few
if any professional economists. This simply is not an
appropriate basis for committing over $100 million of
taxpayer money! At the very least the Corps should be
required to submit its analysis to some outside panel for a
thorough critique before they get a green light on this one.
By US Postal Service I am mailing you a copy of my August
1999 report, and I will welcome reactions from you or your
staff.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Selden, Ph.D.

Mr. BAUCUS. Finally, I underline my appreciation for the hard work of
both Senators from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, as well as Mr. Edwards.
This has been a very contentious issue. But as a consequence of the
mutual hard work, this amendment can be accepted by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for
me to deliver my remarks in a seated position.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful for the willingness of the
Senator from Montana to work with us, to make certain the stabilization
of Oregon Inlet is once more a priority of Congress and of the U.S.
Corps of Engineers--in the next 180 days.
I confess some unease at the prospect of yet another study of the
Oregon Inlet, inasmuch as there already have been almost 100 such
studies previously. If one more study is what is required to save the
livelihoods of the good people of Oregon Inlet who make their livings
as commercial fishermen, then so be it. But let there be no mistake.
This is the last study that will be conducted before action is taken.
That is agreed to by the Senator from Montana and me--to help those
good people, because enough, Mr. President, is enough.
I will work in good faith with the Senator from Montana and others to
make certain that swift action will follow this latest, and I hope
last, study to be undertaken.
Mr. President, for nearly three decades--nearly 28 years, to be
exact--I have been urging the enactment of legislation to restore
security and safety to the remarkable people who live and work on North
Carolinas Outer Banks.
And for those almost three decades, those fine people have been
short-circuited by a federal bureaucracy more intent in imposing its
own will than following through on a much-needed project authorized by
Congress in 1970: That is, to begin the process of creating two hard-
rock jetties to stabilize and secure Oregon Inlet, the only deep-sea
access along the East Coast for a distance of 220 miles between Cape
Henry, Virginia, and Morehead City, N.C.
The purpose of the provision being challenged here tonight is to
first, protect the lives of literally thousands of both commercial and
recreational fishermen who live and work in the Outer Banks, and
second, to protect the livelihoods of those fishermen, their boats

[[Page S7365]]

and their cargo, which is so vital to their making a living.
So let's be clear about what's at stake in this debate. We're talking
about saving lives and saving a way of life for many of thousands of
fine decent people trying to make a living providing fine, fresh
seafood.
Wayne Gray, a Coast Guard officer stationed at the base there told
me, ``Oregon Inlet is a nightmare. In my 32 years in the Coast Guard,
it's the most dangerous place I've ever seen.''
The Coast Guard station there receives on average a distress call
every other day. In this fiscal year alone, the Oregon Inlet Coast
Guard has responded to nearly 100 call for help by distressed seamen.
There will be many more this summer, I'll promise you: There always
are.
Over the years, more than 20 lives have been lost because of the
deadly situation in the Inlet. In fact, I recently received a letter
from a man named Robbie Maharaj who recounted an incident which
happened about 4 years ago.

In November of 1996 a friend and I were fishing on the
northern side of the ocean bar at Oregon Inlet. It was a
fairly rough day at the bar.
We had caught out limit of striped bass and were pulling in
our lines when I heard on the radio that some of my friends
had gone down. I immediately finished pulling up my lines and
went to help.
As I pulled up to the boat, I was able to get one man
aboard. We laid him on the deck. He was so cold from being in
the water that he looked pale, and almost dead. As we got him
on deck, water began to break over the stern of my boat. I
had to leave the scene to avoid going down myself.
All in all, four of the five men in the water made it. I
was able to get two in my boat. Other fishermen pulled out
the two other survivors. the Coast Guard got the one man that
didn't make it.
People ask me all the time whether I would do it again.
There's no question that I would try and pull men out of the
water if I were faced with the same situation again. It's
sort of a buddy system out there. You hear cries for help and
you can't leave them there. You've got to try to help. This
is especially true when the people yelling for help are
friends. Who knows, the next time it could be me yelling to
be saved.
Thanks to the events of 1996, I know just how dangerous
Oregon Inlet can be. Senator, thank you for trying to get the
stabilization effort moving. We really need it.

The provision in question merely transfers the land relevant to the
project from the Department of the Interior to the Army Corps of
Engineers, so that the wheels of the inlet stabilization project can
finally begin. This project is sound. Almost one hundred separate
studies have been made on the project; therefore, we can reasonably say
that just about every possible issue relevant to the project has been
thoroughly considered and resolved.
On an economic scale, the project has a cost/benefit ratio of 1.0/
1.6, meaning for every $1 spent on the project, $1.60 in benefits are
returned.
As for the environmental concerns that have been raised, the Corps
has made numerous compromises and alterations to the jetties in order
to alleviate every single negative impact upon the local habitat and
wildlife.
How many more lives will be lost before Congress makes good on the
commitment made 30 years ago. That time has finally come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The
Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce to all Senators
we are only 2 or 3 minutes away from getting a managers' package of
amendments to wrap up the final consideration of this bill. We also
have some colloquies and statements that Senators have presented to us
during the final stages of the consideration of the bill we are now
reviewing and processing. I expect to be able to present for unanimous
consent agreement, for inclusion in the Record, these statements and
colloquies.
We know of no other amendments that are to be offered.
May I ask the Chair, what is the pending business?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, can we have a vote on the amendment,
please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Montana has
not yet been disposed of.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3981) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we have
been awaiting word from the minority staff of the subcommittee to clear
the managers' package. We have cleared the managers' package on this
side of the aisle. We have statements and colloquies relating to the
managers' package, and I will momentarily send up all of the amendments
and the statements and colloquies related thereto.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if we can have a voice vote on
final passage.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to passing the bill
on a voice vote.

Amendments Nos. 3982 through 4014, En Bloc

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now have an indication that the
managers' package has been cleared. I send the managers' package of
amendments to the desk and ask that they be reported en bloc and
considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and
Mr. Kohl, proposes amendments numbered 3982 through 4014, en
bloc.

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

Amendment No. 3982

(Purpose: To provide for a Animal and Plant Health Services wildlife
services methods development study)

On page 20, line 8, strike the ``.'' and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``: Provided further, That not less than $1 million of the
funds available under this heading made available for
wildlife services methods development, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall conduct pilot projects in no less than four
states representative of wildlife predation of livestock in
connection with farming operations for direct assistance in
the application of non-lethal predation control methods:
Provided further, That the General Accounting Office shall
report to the Committee on Appropriations by November 30,
2001, on the Department's compliance with this provision and
on the effectiveness of the non-lethal measures.''.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased that the
Smith-Boxer amendment on Wildlife Services was accepted to the
Agriculture appropriations bill.
Our amendment will create a pilot study in four States that will
examine the effectiveness of nonlethal predation control methods under
Wildlife Services. Our amendment is reasonable and fair.
Let me briefly talk about the lethal predator control program
administered under the Wildlife Service program.
With our scarce tax dollars, Wildlife Services personnel kill more
than 80,000 mammalian predators a year, mainly coyotes, but also black
bears, mountain lions, foxes, and bobcats.
They conduct this killing by engaging in aerial gunning, poisoning,
and trapping.
Since 1993, there have been 18 aerial gunning crashes. In addition,
the aerial gunning program has caused the deaths of seven individuals,
both Federal and contract employees.
Banned in 89 nations because it is so inhumane, leghold traps catch
any animal unlucky enough to trigger the device. Animals caught in
traps languish and suffer for days, sometimes resorting to twisting off
or chewing off a leg to escape its vice grip.
I am not standing before you today saying that every program that
Wildlife Services executes is harmful or a waste of taxpayer money.

[[Page S7366]]

There are some valuable programs dealing with property protection,
human health and safety, crop protection, natural resources, forest and
range protection, and aquiculture which are not affected by this
amendment.
However, Wildlife Services spends more than $10 million a year on
lethal predator control programs.
But does the lethal predator control program really work? It does not
seem to be controlling the coyote population, it has tripled in number
and increased in range because the surviving coyotes will breed more
often and produce larger litters.

In fact, according to a recent article in the Washington Times,
coyotes have now spread to Virginia and Maryland.
In addition, this program has been under scrutiny for decades.
Several presidential commissions, including commissions in the Kennedy,
Johnson, and Carter administrations have criticized the program's
needless reliance on lethal predator control.
In 1995, the General Accounting Office came to the same conclusion,
stating the Animal Damage Control had failed to opt for non-lethal
programs.
I am well aware that ranchers need to protect their livestock, their
investment. During the last 2 decades, there have been a variety of
practical and effective nonlethal husbandry techniques developed and
put into practical use: The use of guard animals, such as dogs,
donkeys, or llamas; the use of electronic sound and light devices;
predator exclusion fencing; shed lambing; and night penning, et cetera.
By deploying these techniques, ranchers can minimize the need for
lethal responses to predators, which are indiscriminant and cruel to
animals.
In closing I would like to read you a quote from the Tulsa World
newspaper, which says it all:

Despite steady increases in the Wildlife Services annual
budget, and an 8 percent increase in the coyote kill in the
past decade, livestock losses to predators have not declined.
The statistics show that in every state where predator
control was practiced, the agency spent more money on control
than the value of livestock lost. It would be cheaper simply
to compensate ranchers for their losses.

I will repeat that last sentence: ``It would be cheaper simply to
compensate ranchers for their losses.''
In short, the lethal predator control program doesn't work, it is
dangerous for humans, cruel to animals, and a waste of taxpayer
dollars.
I thank the managers of the bill for including this pilot study of
nonlethal predator control methods in the Agriculture appropriations
bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their assistance
in adding an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that
requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services
Research Center to design and implement on-the-ground demonstration
projects to test the application of non-lethal mammalian predator
control techniques.
The purpose of this amendment is to generate data that can be used in
determining the effectiveness of non-lethal methods for protecting
livestock from predators. These nonlethal methods include: the use of
guard animals such as dogs, donkeys, and llamas; the use of predator-
proof electric fencing; special light and sound deterrents; and
promotion of sound animal husbandry techniques such as carcass removal,
night penning, and shed lambing to protect pregnant animals and their
newborns when they are most vulnerable.
Lethal predator control measures, such as shooting, poisoning, or
trapping, should not be employed in these projects. In order to produce
useful outcomes, the pilot projects should involve ranchers whose
circumstances are representative of the types of livestock/predator
conflicts that other ranchers experience around the country.
The General Accounting Office has been tasked with reporting on these
pilot projects and providing an assessment of the effectiveness of
these non-lethal mammalian predator control measures. I look forward to
working with the Department, along with Senator Smith and my other
colleagues, to ensure that this program gets underway quickly and
smoothly to begin demonstrating the value of these non-lethal predator
control methods.

amendment no. 3983

(Purpose: To amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``Sec. . Section 2111(a)(3) of the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 651(a)(3)) is amended by
adding after sulfites, `except in the production of
wine,'.''.
____

amendment no. 3984

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to require offices
of the Farm Services Agency to discontinue use of FINPACK for financial
planning and credit analysis)

On page 75, after line 16 insert the following:
``Sec. . None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require an office of the Farm Service Agency that
is using FINPACK on May 17, 1999, for financial planning and
credit analysis, to discontinue use of FINPACK for six months
from the date of enactment of this Act.''
____

amendment no. 3985

(Purpose: Expands eligibility for Rural Development Community
Facilities program)

On page 93 of division B, as modified, after line 21,
insert the following:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Sea Island Health Clinic located on Johns Island, South
Carolina, shall remain eligible for assistance and funding
from the Rural Development community facilities programs
administered by the Department of Agriculture until such time
new population data is available from the 2000 Census.''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3986

(Purpose: To provide funds for a study on flood plain management for
the Pocasset River, Rhode Island)

On page 34, line 23, before the period at the end, insert
the following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made
available for watershed and flood prevention activities,
$500,000 shall be available for a study to be conducted by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation
with the town of Johnston, Rhode Island, on floodplain
management for the Pocasset River, Rhode Island''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3987

(Purpose: To allocate funding made available by this Act for loans and
grants to federally recognized Indian tribes under the rural community
advance program under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)

On page 36, lines 20 through 25, Strike ``including grants
for drinking and waste disposal systems pursuant to Section
306C of such Act: Provided further, That the Federally
Recognized Native American Tribes are not eligible for any
other rural utilities program set aside under the Rural
Community Advancement Program:'' and insert ``of which (1)
$1,000,000 shall be available for rural business opportunity
grants under section 306(a)(11) of that Act (7 U.S.C.
1926(a)(11)), (2) $5,000,000 shall be available for community
facilities grants for tribal college improvements under
section 306(a)(19) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)19)), (3)
$15,000,000 shall be available for grants for drinking water
and waste disposal systems under section 306C of that Act (7
U.S.C. 1926c) to federally recognized Native American Tribes
that are not eligible to receive funds under any other rural
utilities program set-aside under the rural community
advancement program, and (4) $3,000,000 shall be available
for rural business enterprise grants under section 310B(c) of
that Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)):''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3988

(Purpose: To provide for a pasture recovery program)

On page 84, line 23, after ``section'', insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made
available by this section, up to $40,000,000 may be used to
carry out the Pasture Recovery Program: Provided further,
That the payments to a producer made available through the
Pasture Recovery Program shall be no less than 65 percent of
the average cost of reseeding''.
____

amendment no. 3989

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of any funding to recover payments
erroneously made to oyster fishermen in the State of Connecticut)

On page 95, after line 22, add the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act or in
any other Act may be used to recover part or all of any
payment erroneously made to any oyster fisherman in the State
of Connecticut for oyster losses under the program
established under section 1102(b) of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(a) of Division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law
105-277)), and the regulations issued pursuant to such
section 1102(b).

[[Page S7367]]

____
Amendment No. 3990

(Purpose: To provide support for creative anti-hunger initiatives in
the USDA ranked number one hunger state)

On page 17, line 1 strike ``; and'' and insert ``; and for
the Oregon State University Agriculture Extension Service,
$176,000 for the Food Electronically and Effectively
Distributed (FEED) website demonstration project; and''; line
8, strike ``$12,107,000'' and insert ``$12,283,000'' and
strike ``$426,505,000'' and insert ``$426,680,000''; on line
19, strike ``$43,541,000'' and insert ``$43,365,000''; on
line 25, strike ``6,000,000'' and insert ``$5,824,000''.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl
for accepting this important amendment to S. 2536, the Agriculture
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
According to the USDA, Oregon ranks first in hunger and seventh in
food insecurity in the nation. This amendment will fund, at $176,000, a
demonstration project pairing technology and teamwork: The Food
Electronically and Effectively Distributed FEED Website Demonstration
Project.
As the only state in the nation with a statewide food bank system in
place, the Oregon Food Bank, as well as an organized and active
agricultural community, Oregon is prepared to develop and use the FEED
website to provide a national model for other states interested in
pursuing an organized statewide anti-hunger campaign.
Developed and used in conjunction with Oregon food producers,
processors, distributors, transporters, and anti-hunger agents, as well
as the UDA and state agriculture extension agents the FEED website will
transform the current anti-hunger food distribution network by using
the power of Internet technology to support and facilitate real-time
communication links between those with food, those who need food and
those who can transport food.
The FEED website will also provide a forum for sharing information
about innovative anti-hunger efforts, both legislative and
organizational, as well as links to other existing government, non-
profit, and anti-hunger web sites to increase information sharing
between active organizations and people in need.

amendment no. 3991

(Purpose: To increase the Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing income
limits)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``Sec. . Hereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
consider any borrower whose income does not exceed 115
percent of the median family income of the United States as
meeting the eligibility requirements for a borrower contained
in section 502(h)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.
1472(h)(2)).
____

amendment no. 3992

In Division B, strike section 1106 and insert the following
new section:
Sec. 1106. The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities
and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make
and administer supplemental payments to dairy producers who
received a payment under section 805 of Public Law 106-78 in
an amount equal to thirty-five percent of the reduction in
market value of milk production in 2000, as determined by the
Secretary, based on price estimates as of the date of
enactment of this Act, from the previous five-year average
and on the base production of the producer used to make a
payment under section 805 of Public Law 106-78: Provided,
That these funds shall be available until September 30, 2001:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall make payments to
producers under this section in a manner consistent with and
subject to the same limitations on payments and eligible
production as, the payments to dairy producers under section
805 of Public Law 106-78: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall make provisions for making payments, in
addition, to new producers: Provided further, That for any
producers, including new producers, whose base production was
less than twelve months for purposes of section 805 of Public
Law 106-78, the producer's base production for the purposes
of payments under this section may be, at the producer's
option, the production of that producer in the twelve months
preceding the enactment of this section or the producer's
base production under the program operated under section 805
of Public Law 106-78 subject to such limitations as apply to
other producers: Provided further, That the entire amount
necessary to carry out this section shall be available only
to the extent that an official budget request for the entire
amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the
request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.''
____

amendment no. 3993

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
emergency loans to poultry producers to rebuild chicken houses
destroyed by disasters)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. .--Section 321(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(b)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Loans to poultry farmers.--
``(A) Inability to obtain insurance.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry
farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken
house for which the farmer did not have hazard insurance at
the time of the loss, if the farmer--

``(I) applied for, but was unable, to obtain hazard
insurance for the chicken house;
``(II) uses the loan to rebuild the chicken house in
accordance with industry standards in effect on the date the
farmer submits an application for the loan (referred to in
this paragraph as `current industry standards');
``(III) obtains, for the term of the loan, hazard insurance
for the full market value of the chicken house; and
``(IV) meets the other requirements for the loan under this
subtitle.

``(ii) Amount.--Subject to the limitation contained in
Sec. 324(a)(2) the amount of a loan made to a poultry farmer
under clause (i) shall be an amount that will allow the
farmer to rebuild the chicken house in accordance with
current industry standards.
``(B) Loans to comply with current industry standards.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry
farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken
house for which the farmer had hazard insurance at the time
of the loss, if--

``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance is less than the
cost of rebuilding the chicken house in accordance with
current industry standards;
``(II) the farmer uses the loan to rebuild the chicken
house in accordance with current industry standards;
``(III) the farmer obtains, for the term of the loan,
hazard insurance for the full market value of the chicken
house; and
``(IV) the farmer meets the other requirements for the loan
under this subtitle.

``(ii) Amount.--Subject to the limitation contained in
Sec. 324(a)(2) the amount of a loan made to a poultry farmer
under clause (i) shall be the difference between--

``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance obtained by the
farmer; and
``(II) the cost of rebuilding the chicken house in
accordance with current industry standards.''.
____

Amendment No. 3994

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding preference for
assistance for victims of domestic violence)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PREFERENCE FOR
ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of
Agriculture, in selecting public agencies and nonprofit
organizations to provide transitional housing under section
592(c) of subtitle G of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11408a(c)), should
consider preferences for agencies and organizations that
provide transitional housing for individuals and families who
are homeless as a result of domestic violence.
____

amendment no. 3995

(Purpose: To allocate appropriated funds for early detection and
treatment concerning childhood lead poisoning at sites participating in
the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children)

On page 50, line 6, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That funds made available
under this heading shall be made available for sites
participating in the special supplemental nutrition program
for women, infants, and children to--
``(1) determine whether a child eligible to participate in
the program has received a blood lead screening test, using a
test that is appropriate for age and risk factors, upon the
enrollment of the child in the program;
____

amendment no. 3996

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs in order
to accelerate the review of generic drug applications)

On page 56, line 9, strike ``$313,143,000'' and insert
``$315,143,000''.
On page 57, line 2, strike ``$78,589,000'' and insert
``$76,589,000''.
____

amendment no. 3997

(Purpose: To provide funds for the cleanup of methamphetamine labs by
State and local law enforcement)

On page 96 the modified division B after line 2, insert the
following:

Drug Enforcement Administration (Domestic Enhancements)

methamphetamine lab cleanup assistance for state and local law
enforcement

For an additional amount for drug enforcement
administration, $5,000,000 for the Drug Enforcement Agency to
assist in State and local methamphetamine lab cleanup
(including reimbursement for costs incurred by

[[Page S7368]]

State and local governments for lab cleanup since March
2000):Provided, That the entire amount shall be available
only to the extent an official budget request for $5,000,000,
that includes designation of the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement as defined by the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is transmitted by
the President to the Congress: Provided further, That the
entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3998

On page 4, line 12, before the period at the end of the
line, insert ``: Provided, That the Chief Financial Officer
shall actively market cross-serving activities of the
National Finance Center''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 3999

(Purpose: To fund biomass-based energy research)

On page 13, line 13, strike ``$62,207,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$63,157,000''.
On page 13, line 16, strike ``$121,350,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$120,400,000''.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Cochran and
Harkin for their assistance in getting this proposal included in the
Agriculture Appropriations bill for FY 2001. The biomass program is a
collaborative effort between Oklahoma State University and Mississippi
State University.
We are now 56 percent dependent on foreign oil. It is projected that
by 2020 we will be more than 65 percent dependent on oil from foreign
nations. Such dependency is a major threat to our national security. We
need to make every effort possible to reduce and curb this dependency.
This program will aid us in this effort.
The effort between these two universities will focus on the continued
development of a unique gasification-bioconversion process at OSU that
utilizes biomass including crop residues, underutilized grasses, and
plant byproducts.
Those conducting the research consist of a senior team of nationally
recognized experts in biomass production, feedstock harvesting and
processing of technologies, environmental impact assessment, and
biochemical process.
I ask my colleagues for their support of this unique opportunity for
Oklahoma, Mississippi and for the nation.

amendment no. 4000

(Purpose: To provide fiscal year 2000 supplemental contingent emergency
funding to the Department of the Treasury for the Customs Service
Automated Commercial System)

On page 93 of division B, as modified, after line 21,
insert the following:

``GENERAL PROVISION--THIS TITLE

``Sec. . In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available in Public Law 106-58 to the Department of the
Treasury, Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments
Programs, $123,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2001, for maintaining and operating the current Customs
Service Automated Commercial System: Provided, That the funds
shall not be obligated until the Customs Service has
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations an expenditure
plan which has been approved by the Treasury Investment
Review Board, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office
of Management and Budget: Provided further, That none of the
funds may be obligated to change the functionality of the
Automated Commercial System itself: Provided further, That
the entire amount shall be available only to the extent that
an official budget request for $123,000,000, that includes
designation of the entire amount as an emergency requirement
as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire
amount made available under this section is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.''.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Chairman and the
Committee including $123,000,000 in emergency funding for the Customs
Service Automated Commercial System, or ACS. The current legacy
computer system of the Customs Service is in dire need of this
emergency funding. This 16 year old system regularly experiences what
is called ``brownouts'' or system-wide outages. When this system goes
down, believe it or not, the Customs Service must process all entries
by hand. These outages are only becoming more frequent and they are
lasting longer and longer. You can imagine the delays at the border
that this situation causes. For example, in an outage in March at the
Buffalo port, a five-hour delay generated so much paper that the entry
documents were piled so high Customs could not see their customers on
the other side of the counter. Not only do these outages create long
lines at the ports, but after the system is back up and running,
Customs employees must then work overtime trying to enter all of the
paper entries generated during the outage. Therefore, Mr. President, I
am pleased that the Committee has included this funding to address this
very serious issue.

amendment no. 4001

(Purpose: To fully fund the Food and Drug Administration's food safety
initiative activities)

On page 57, line 2, strike ``$78,589,000'' and insert
``$72,589,000''.
On page 57, line 10, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That in addition to amounts
otherwise appropriated under this heading to the Food and
Drug Administration, an additional $6,000,000 shall be made
available of which $5,000,000 shall be made available for the
Centers for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs, and
$1,000,000 shall be made available to the National Center for
Toxicological Research''.

Mr. KENNEDY. The American food supply is one of the safest in the
world--but it is not safe enough. Over 75 million Americans a year are
stricken by disease caused by contaminated food they eat. Each year,
9,000 people--mostly the very young and the very old--die as a result.
The costs of medical treatment and losses in productivity for these
illnesses are as high as $37 billion annually.
The emergence of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and the
increase in the number of organisms resistant to antibiotics, are
compounding these problems and making foodborne illnesses an
increasingly serious public health challenge.
Americans deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe,
regardless of their source. Yet too many citizens today are at
unnecessary risk of foodborne disease. This Congress can make a
difference. The FDA requested a budget increase of $30 million in 2001
for its Food Safety Initiative activities. With these additional funds,
the FDA can improve its inspection of high-risk food establishments and
strengthen its laboratory capabilities. Without this funding, the
agency will conduct 700 fewer inspections next year. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of protecting our
food supply by granting the FDA the majority of its requested increase
for food safety. The amendment I propose will give the FDA the
additional $6 million it needs for these efforts.
In response to improved surveillance and increased sampling and
testing, illnesses from the most common bacterial foodborne pathogens
decreased by 21% from 1997 to 1999. As a result, 855,000 fewer
Americans each year suffer from foodborne diseases. But contaminated
food still remains a significant public health problem.
Recently, a new strain of an organism contaminated oysters in Texas,
and caused an epidemic of diarrhea. This year, the FDA recalled several
smoked fish products manufactured in New York because of outbreaks of
disease. In March, 500 college students in Massachusetts became ill
with Norwalk-like virus. Each year there are also at least 4700 cases
of Salmonella in Massachusetts. We must do more to protect our citizens
from foodborne diseases.
Imported foods are a significant part of the problem and often pose
especially serious health risks. Americans are consuming foods from
other countries at increasing rates. Since 1992, the number of food
imports has tripled. At that time, the FDA was able to inspect only 8%
of these imports. Since then the rate of FDA inspections of imported
food has dropped to less than 1%, because resources did not increase
for monitoring these imports.
Other countries have often not implemented food safety protections
comparable to those in the United States, and general sanitary
conditions are often poor. As a consequence, foods from such countries
are more likely to be contaminated with disease-producing organisms. In
1995, 242 people contracted Salmonella from alfalfa sprouts imported
from the Netherlands. In 1996, over 1,400 people became ill from
contaminated raspberries from Guatemala. Just this year, infected
shrimp from Vietnam caused Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks.

[[Page S7369]]

In earlier decades, diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera were
the focus of food safety concerns. Today diseases caused by dangerous
new strains of E. coli have become primary causes of foodborne illness.
These new organisms necessitate increased investment in research,
technology, and surveillance to protect the safety of our food supply.
Food safety are also especially important to protect the growing
number of individuals in vulnerable populations, such as young
children, the elderly, those with lowered immunity from HIV, and those
with inadequate access to health care.
By providing the FDA with the necessary resources to combat foodborne
diseases, we can protect tens of millions of our fellow citizens across
the country each year. Investment in food safety is an investment in
the health of every American. Congress should give the FDA the
resources it needs in order to ensure the safety of the food we eat.
The amendment I am proposing is a major step to meet this challenge,
and I urge the Senate to approve it.

amendment no. 4002

On page 71, line 3, strike the comma and insert the
following: ``prior to July 1, 2001,''.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to report on an agreement reached
today between Senator Inouye and myself regarding the Fort Reno
Agriculture Research Station at El Reno, Oklahoma.
Our agreement delays any decision on the ARS until the next
Administration. It also preserves the right of Congress to play a role
in the future of the ARS. Our agreement ensures that any decision made
about the research station will be made based on the merits of the work
performed there rather than a decision based on November political
considerations.
The agreement should not be read to mean that the research station
will be eliminated, nor that the lands at Fort Reno should or will be
returned to the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe of Oklahoma.
I do not want the status of the Agriculture Research Station to be
influenced by presidential politics, which has been the case in the
past. This agreement will help prevent the future of the research
station from becoming an election-year tool and better protect both the
tribe and the research station from pressures surrounding the November
election.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Nickles that Congress
should have oversight of this issue and that decisions made about the
research station should be made based on the merits of the work
performed there rather than political considerations.
If one day Fort Reno is declared surplus or excess property by USDA,
I hope that the Cheyenne and Arapaho's interest in the land will be
considered. I believe they have a legitimate case in their pursuit of
that land, and I look forward to working further with Senator Nickles
on this issue.

AMENDMENT NO. 4003

(Purpose: To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk
products or casein from being labeled as domestic natural cheese, and
for other purposes)

On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
Sec. 740. Natural Cheese Standard.--(a) Prohibition.--
Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 341) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a)
Whenever''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) The Commissioner may not use any Federal funds to
amend section 133.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling), to
include dry ultra-filtered milk or casein in the definition
of the term `milk' or `nonfat milk', as specified in the
standards of identity for cheese and cheese products
published at part 133 of title 21, Code of Federal
Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or
ruling).''.
(b) Importation Study.--Not later than ____ days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall--
(1) conduct a study to determine--
(A) the quantity of ultra-filtered milk that is imported
annually into the United States; and
(B) the end use of that imported milk; and
(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results
of the study.
____

Amendment No. 4004

On page 13, line 13, strike ``62,207,000'' and insert
``62,707,000''.
On page 13, line 16, strike ``121,350,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``120,850,000''.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment will provide $500,000,
for Satsuma Orange research at Auburn University in Alabama. These
funds will be used to conduct research on developing technologies that
reduce freeze damage, necessary for consistent production and industry
expansion for the Satsuma Orange in the United States.
These funds will be used specifically for studies to reduce damage by
fall and winter freezes suffered by the Satsuma Orange trees; studies
evaluating micro sprinkler irrigation systems as a means of protecting
the crop against freezes; evaluations for cold hardiness, cropping,
harvest time, and fruit quality; and studies to determine critical
temperatures that kill the crop and the factors that affect cold
hardiness.

amendment no. 4005

At the appropriate place in title VII insert the following:
``None of the funds appropriated by this act to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture may be used to implement or
administer the final rule issued in Docket Number 97-110, at
65 Federal Register 37608-37669 until such time as USDA
completes an independent peer review of the rule and the risk
assessment underlying the rule.''.
____

amendment no. 4006

(Purpose: To require that any award entered into under the dairy export
incentive program that is canceled or voided is made available for
reassignment under the program)

On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
Sec. . Dairy Export Incentive Program.--Section 153(c) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5)(A) any award entered into under the program that is
canceled or voided after June 30, 1995, is made available for
reassignment under the program as long as a World Trade
Organization violation is not incurred; and
``(B) any reassignment under subparagraph (A) is not
reported as a new award when reporting the use of the
reassigned tonnage to the World Trade Organization.'';
On page 36, line 9, strike ``749,284,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``759,284,000''; on page 36, line 12, strike
``634,360,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``644,360,000''.
____

amendment no. 4007

(Purpose: To require the use of a certain amount of appropriated funds
to carry out the Food Distribution on Indian Reservations)

On page 50, line 22, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That, of funds made
available under this heading and not already appropriated to
the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
established under section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977
(7 U.S.C. 2013(b), (1) an additional amount not to exceed
$7,300,000 shall be used to purchase bison for the FDPIR and
to provide a mechanism for the purchases from Native American
producers and cooperative organizations''.
____

amendment no. 4008

On page 13, line 13, strike ``$62,207,000'' and insert
``$62,707,000''.
On page 13, line 16, strike ``$121,350,000'' and insert * *
*

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the emerging field of bioinformatics uses
information technology to analyze the billions of bits of data that
create a human or plant genome. The research efforts at Virginia Tech
will complement and support efforts by the Department to develop new
bioinformatic tools, biological data bases, and other information
management tools, which hold the promise of reinvigorating our rural
communities through high-technology jobs in agri-biotechnology. This
amendment provides $500,000 to support Virginia Polytechnic Institute's
(VPI) Bioinformatics initiative.

AMENDMENT NO. 4009

(Purpose: To set aside funding for the distance learning and
telemedicine program to promote employment of rural residents through
teleworking)

On page 47, line 8, after ``areas,'', insert the following:
``of which not more than $3,000,000 may be used to make
grants to rural entities to promote employment of rural
residents through teleworking, including to provide
employment-related services, such as outreach to employers,
training, and job placement, and to pay expenses relating to
providing high-speed communications services, and''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 4010

(Purpose: To extend the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide grants for State mediation programs dealing with agricultural
issues)

On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

[[Page S7370]]

Sec. 740. State Agricultural Mediation Programs.--(a)
Eligible Person; Mediation Services.--Section 501 of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)
and inserting the following:
``(1) Issues covered.--
``(A) In general.--To be certified as a qualifying State,
the mediation program of the State must provide mediation
services to persons described in paragraph (2) that are
involved in agricultural loans (regardless of whether the
loans are made or guaranteed by the Secretary or made by a
third party).
``(B) Other issues.--The mediation program of a qualifying
State may provide mediation services to persons described in
paragraph (2) that are involved in 1 or more of the following
issues under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture:
``(i) Wetlands determinations.
``(ii) Compliance with farm programs, including
conservation programs.
``(iii) Agricultural credit.
``(iv) Rural water loan programs.
``(v) Grazing on National Forest System land.
``(vi) Pesticides.
``(vii) Such other issues as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
``(2) Persons eligible for mediation.--The persons referred
to in paragraph (1) include--
``(A) agricultural producers;
``(B) creditors of producers (as applicable); and
``(C) persons directly affected by actions of the
Department of Agriculture.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Definition of Mediation Services.--In this section,
the term `mediation services', with respect to mediation or a
request for mediation, may include all activities related
to--
``(1) the intake and scheduling of cases;
``(2) the provision of background and selected information
regarding the mediation process;
``(3) financial advisory and counseling services (as
appropriate) performed by a person other than a State
mediation program mediator; and
``(4) the mediation session.''.
(b) Use of Mediation Grants.--Section 502(c) of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5102(c)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Each'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Each''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Operation and administration expenses.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), operation and administration expenses for
which a grant may be used include--
``(A) salaries;
``(B) reasonable fees and costs of mediators;
``(C) office rent and expenses, such as utilities and
equipment rental;
``(D) office supplies;
``(E) administrative costs, such as workers' compensation,
liability insurance, the employer's share of Social Security,
and necessary travel;
``(F) education and training;
``(G) security systems necessary to ensure the
confidentiality of mediation sessions and records of
mediation sessions;
``(H) costs associated with publicity and promotion of the
mediation program;
``(I) preparation of the parties for mediation; and
``(J) financial advisory and counseling services for
parties requesting mediation.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 506 of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5106) is amended by
striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2005''.

amendment no. 4011

(Purpose: To provide increased funding for the Extension farm safety
program, including funding at a level of $3,055,000 for the AgrAbility
project)

On page 13, line 16, strike $121,350,000 and insert
``$120,650,000''.
On page 15, line 2, strike $494,744,000 and insert
``$494,044,000''.
On page 16, line 6, strike $3,400,000 and insert
``$4,100,000''.
On page 17, line 8, strike $426,504,000 and insert
``$427,204,000''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 4012

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
equitable relief to an owner or operator that has entered into and
violated a contract under the environmental conservation acreage
reserve program if the owner or operator took actions in good faith
reliance on the action or advice of an authorized representative of the
Secretary)

On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
Sec. 740. Good Faith Reliance.--The Food Security Act of
1985 is amended by inserting after section 1230 (16 U.S.C.
3830) the following:

``SEC. 1230A. GOOD FAITH RELIANCE.

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (d) and
notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
Secretary shall provide equitable relief to an owner or
operator that has entered into a contract under this chapter,
and that is subsequently determined to be in violation of the
contract, if the owner or operator in attempting to comply
with the terms of the contact and enrollment requirements
took actions in good faith reliance on the action or advice
of an authorized representative of the Secretary.
``(b) Types of Relief.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) to the extent the Secretary determines that an owner
or operator has been injured by good faith reliance described
in subsection (a), allow the owner or operator to do any one
or more of the following--
``(A) to retain payments received under the contract;
``(B) to continue to receive payments under the contract;
``(C) to keep all or part of the land covered by the
contract enrolled in the applicable program under this
chapter;
``(D) to reenroll all or part of the land covered by the
contract in the applicable program under this chapter; or
``(E) or any other equitable relief the Secretary deems
appropriate; and
``(2) require the owner or operator to take such actions as
are necessary to remedy any failure to comply with the
contract.
``(c) Relation to Other Law.--The authority to provide
relief under this section shall be in addition to any other
authority provided in this or any other Act.
``(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply to a pattern
of conduct in which an authorized representative of the
Secretary takes actions or provides advice with respect to an
owner or operator that the representative and the owner or
operator know are inconsistent with applicable law (including
regulations).''.
``(e) Applicability of Relief.--Relief under this section
shall be available for contracts in effect on January 1, 2000
and for all subsequent contracts.''.
____

Amendment No. 4013

(Purpose: To require the publication of data collected on imported
herbs)

On page 89, after line 19, add the following:
Sec. 1111. Availability of Data on Imported Herbs.--The
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury,
shall publish and otherwise make available (including through
electronic media) data collected monthly by each Secretary on
herbs imported into the United States.
____

Amendment No. 4014

(Purpose: To adjust the limitation to carry out research related to
tobacco)

On page 15, line 6, before the period, insert: ``:
Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on
the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of
tobacco''.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to be guided by the
interest of the Senate. I have a list of the amendments which I am
prepared to read if Senators would like. I can send the list to the
desk and have it printed in the Record. I asked my staff if we read the
list last year, and they said we did not. Maybe considering the mood of
the Senate, I should not read the list.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, can the Senator estimate how much total
spending is in those amendments?
Mr. COCHRAN. I do not have an estimate. They are within the budget
allocation of the committee. None of them will require a waiver. There
are two amendments that are attached to this bill that are not within
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. One is related to
methamphetamine laboratory cleanup which comes under Commerce-Justice,
and another is related to Customs Service computer systems which comes
under the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
managers' package be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3982 through 4014), en bloc, were agreed to.

ars research project in east lansing, mi

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate S. 2536, the
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I am concerned that
this bill omits an appropriation included in the House version of this
bill (H.R. 4461).
H.R. 4461 appropriates $309,600 for the Agriculture Research Service
(ARS) to fund research addressing Postharvest Handling and
Mechanization to Minimize Damage for Fruits. This research is vital,
not only for Michigan, but for all fruit producing states.
This research has the potential to allow fruit growers to realize
greater profits by better ensuring fruit quality. Given the significant
potential of this program to assist fruit producers in my home state, I
am troubled by its exclusion in S. 2536.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his comments. He
is

[[Page S7371]]

correct in stating that the House Appropriations Act for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for Fiscal Year 2001 funds research regarding Postharvest Handling and
Mechanization to Minimize Damage for Fruits while the Senate
counterpart does not.
Mr. LEVIN. I would appreciate the Senate conferees giving full
consideration to the House position on this matter.
Mr. COCHRAN. I assure the Senator from Michigan that this specific
request will be carefully considered in conference as I can understand
how important this matter is.

fda's adverse event reports

Mr. HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support an increase to the Food
and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Monitoring System regarding
dietary supplements. This would be administered by the FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). This increase in FDA's
Adverse Event Monitoring System for dietary supplements is an important
component in the overall effort to implement fully the Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act.
Mr. HARKIN. I am proud to join my distinguished colleague, the Senior
Senator from Utah, in supporting this endeavor. This proposed increase
in FDA's Adverse Event Monitoring System for dietary supplements is an
important component in the overall effort to implement fully the
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. It also continues our
mutual efforts to promote better public health and consumer safety. The
FDA monitors adverse events related to dietary supplements. The dietary
supplement sales have doubled in the past five years. In fact, surveys
indicate that nearly half of all Americans use some type of dietary
supplement, spending over $12 billion annually for these products. FDA
estimates that the industry markets approximately 29,000 of these
products, which are sold under 75,000 distinct labels.
Mr. HATCH. Despite this phenomenal growth in the supplement industry,
the FDA currently does not have the resources to process adverse event
reports in a timely manner and with comprehensive information. As a
result, a substantial backlog currently exists in reviewing adverse
event reports in the dietary supplement area. However, we must assure
that these funds for AERs are effectively spent. Accordingly, Mr.
Chairman, I respectfully request that you work with Senator Harkin and
myself on this issue. More specifically, we request that the FDA be
directed to assign additional personnel to maintain the timeliness and
accuracy of the AER system for dietary supplements. In addition,
Congress needs to be assured that all published reports are accompanied
by the results of a scientific evaluation of the link between the
product and the adverse event and evidence of timely prior notification
of any manufacturer or distributor mentioned in the report.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate your bringing this issue to the attention
of the Committee, and I will carefully consider this issue affecting
the FDA's Adverse Event Monitoring System regarding dietary
supplements. I thank the Senator for raising this matter to my
attention.

USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil and Water Research Laboratory

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his continuing
support for the New England, Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory
in Orono, Maine. Quite frankly, with his help and the support of his
Subcommittee, we have literally snatched this USDA-Agricultural
Research Service potato research laboratory--so important to the Maine
potato industry--from the jaws of defeat ever since the Administration
called for its closing in 1995. Not only have we kept the doors open,
but with his support, the research facility on the University of Maine
campus in Orono now has not only Dr. Wayne Honeycutt as its very
capable lead scientist, but has added two plant pathologists, a
research chemist, and a soon to be added research agronomist because of
his support last year. I want to once again re-emphasize just how
critical the lab's survival is to the state of Maine, its potato
growers, and its economy.
Ninety-five percent of the potato acreage in the six states in the
New England region are in Maine, and the lab has the benefit of being
in close proximity to the grower's fields. There has been a long and
productive history of collaborative potato research involving the
state, the university research program, and private agricultural
interests.
The laboratory's last need is for a soil physicist to complete its
scientific staff and not for a soil pathologist as originally requested
and for which $300,000 is provided for as stated on page 31 of the
Report Language for S. 2536. I request that this technical correction
be made for a soil physicist.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senior Senator from Maine for her tireless
efforts over these past five years to not only keep the ARS laboratory
open but to assure that the facility is staffed with skilled scientists
and support staff that continue to be of great service to the
agriculture community in Maine. This research facility has my support
and the appropriate technical change will be made for a soil physicist.
Ms. SNOWE. Once again, I thank the chairman for his support of
agriculture throughout my State, and I praise him for your fine
leadership as Chair of the Subcommittee.

Quality and Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I want to thank the Senator from
Mississippi, for drafting an excellent FY2001 Agriculture
Appropriations bill that will help meet the needs of our nation's
farmers and agricultural communities. I especially want to thank him
for working closely with me to ensure that issues affecting the Idaho
agriculture are addressed in the bill.
I know that the Senator from Mississippi works hard with limited
resources to fund worthwhile and fiscally responsible agricultural
research programs. One important area of agriculture research involves
increasing the shelf life of our food, while maintaining its quality,
and one of the most promising methods is irradiation. In Idaho, Idaho
State University is home to the Idaho Accelerator Center (IAC) which is
proposing a research program to investigate the effects of small
amounts of irradiation--as compared to conventional food irradiation--
on the behavior of potatoes. IAC and several Idaho-based partners have
been studying the positive effects of low doses of x-ray and electron
beam irradiation on the storage properties and shelf life of potatoes.
Significant improvement in shelf life has been demonstrated over the
entire range of standard storage conditions, with virtually no decline
in quality. The results indicate that long term storage losses can be
reduced to very low levels and that shelf life during transport,
storage by vendors and by consumers is extended indefinitely. It is
believed that these findings will also hold true for other commodities
such as onions, sugar beets, etc. These results are achieved without
chemicals, radioactive materials or other environmentally harmful
processes. The irradiation is provided by the electron beams produced
from compact, portable high-energy electron-linear accelerators.
While I know that the project is not funded in the Senate bill, I
want to ask the Chairman to consider the IAC proposal during Conference
on the bill. This is a worthy project and one that I am confident will
lead to real results that will benefit our farmers and consumers.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Idaho
for his kind remarks. We have tried hard to accommodate every
worthwhile request but, as we all know, we are constrained by our
budget allocation. I want to assure him, however, that I will
thoroughly review the request made by the Idaho Accelerator Center at
Idaho State University and will give it appropriate consideration
during Conference.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I want to thank the Chairman for his
willingness to look at this, and for all he does for American
agriculture and a safe, secure, food supply.

Montana Food Stamp Standard Utility Waiver

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment that
Senator Burns and I were working with the Committee on in this
Agriculture Appropriations bill that would

[[Page S7372]]

help Montana's senior citizens and low-income citizens. In particular,
this measure would provide an additional $500,000 to enable the State
of Montana continue its food stamp program standard utility allowance
(``SUA'') waiver. Montana is currently operating under an agreement
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue extending the
waiver.
Montana has approximately 25,000 households using food stamps. Of
this number, over 19,000 would be tragically affected by the loss of
this waiver. For example, many elderly food stamp recipients who live
on fixed incomes and/or reside in public housing would be hard hit be
the loss of the Standard Utility Allowance waiver. In many such cases,
records from the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services
indicate that the loss could be higher than fifty percent of the
benefit.
Second, the state of Montana is currently serving 952 ``able-bodied
adults without dependents.'' Many of these are either homeless or at
risk of losing their housing. Decreasing their current food stamp
benefit would only exacerbate their difficult situations.
Finally, many of these food stamp recipients live in Montana's 634
group homes for the disabled. The loss of the Standard Utility
Allowance would decrease food stamps for these individuals with
disabilities creating further hardship for group homes which already
operate with very little budget flexibility.
The entire Montana delegation has worked hard over the past two years
in conjunction with our Montana Department of Public Health and Human
Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of
Management and Budget to maintain this critical program. I am pleased
that Senator Cochran is willing to work with Senator Burns and myself
to address this issue within the context of this Agriculture
Appropriations bill.
Mr. BURNS. I whole-heartedly support this amendment which is so
critical to so many Montana families. The SUA waiver is of particular
concern because long winters and high utility costs are something all
Montanans face, regardless of income. This waiver allows a credit to a
household's income when determining eligibility and amount of food
stamp benefits. Because of the unique set of challenges facing
Montanans in terms of extreme weather conditions, termination of the
Standard Utility Allowance could very well put many needy households at
risk of experiencing hunger.
The current SUA waiver is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2000.
However, the USDA Food Nutrition Service has conditionally approved the
extension of the Montana SUA waiver for an additional year to September
30, 2001. A primary condition to that approval is congressional
approval of adequate funding.
To date, this waiver has been very successful in its goals to provide
nutritional assistance to low-income citizens. I strongly support
funding this program at $500,000 and will work with my colleagues to
make that happen by the end of conference.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senators from Montana for working with the
Agriculture Appropriations Committee to bring to our attention the need
for funding of this important measure.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Cochran, for your support. Montana's
hungry families appreciate your efforts.

BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE FOR MODEL PLANT SPECIES

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the
Chairman of the Subcommittee, the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator
from New Mexico regarding the establishment of a Bioinformatics
Institute for Model Plant Species as a collaborative effort between the
USDA Agriculture Research Service, New Mexico State University, and
Iowa State University.
Mr. COCHRAN. I will be pleased to speak with my colleagues regarding
this issue. I understand that this is a cooperative approach to enhance
the accessibility and utility of genomic information for plant genetic
research, and Senator Domenici championed the authorization for this
institute in the recently enacted Agricultural Risk Protection Act.
Mr. DOMENICI. The chairman is correct that this cooperatively
operated institute would reduce duplication of effort as research
institutions across the country find the need to develop bioinformatics
systems to validate and disseminate results from plant genomic studies.
Three model plant species have been identified by the National Science
Foundation, and this institute would incorporate software platforms
that will enable the integration of these model plant bioinformatic
resources with crop plant bioinformatic resources.
Mr. HARKIN. Over the past several months, my staff and I have had the
pleasure of discussing this collaboration between Iowa State
University, New Mexico State University, and the Agriculture Research
Service with representatives of the National Center for Genome
Resources, and want to express my support for establishing this
institute. It would bring research scientists from the State
Agriculture Experiment Stations and ARS together with the expertise in
bioinformatics and software platforms developed by NCGR and its work on
the Human Genome Project. Through this combination of expertise, the
institute would greatly reduce the chances of having to ``reinvent the
wheel,'' so to speak, as genomic research continues to expand into
greater numbers of agricultural plant species.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I concur with my colleagues' assessment that this
institute would provide a valuable addition in the research area of
plant genomics. It would let us avoid redundant genomics research in
crop species and leverage information for crop improvement. Funding for
this institute would augment existing skills and resources, rather than
building new bioinformatics infrastructure.
Mr. DOMENICI. Funding from the Agricultural Research Service will be
needed to establish this institute. I understand that with the funding
provided for ARS in this bill, that may not be possible. I ask the
Chairman if he would assist us in the upcoming Conference Committee to
ensure that ARS funding is adequate to accommodate this important
project?
Mr. COCHRAN. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue to
the attention of the Senate. I appreciate the significance of
establishing this institute, and I will make every effort to
accommodate their request in the Conference.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and
look forward to working with him in the Conference.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I, too, thank the Chairman for his assurance.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee.

STUDY TO IMPROVE AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
regarding a study to improve farming practices in Africa.
As the chairman knows, the Trade and Development Act of 2000 was
signed into law in May. This Act authorized a study on ways to improve
African agricultural practices. This study will be conducted by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture in consultation with a land grant
university and a not-for-profit organization that has firsthand
knowledge of African farming.
While a two year study is authorized, it is my understanding that
ample data and research exists supporting the need to establish a more
formal relationship to improve farming practices in Africa.
To that end, I ask the Chairman if he would work with me to ensure
that the USDA takes up this study in a timely fashion and incorporates
the existing data so that we can formally implement these
recommendations.
Mr. COCHRAN. I want to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and
appreciate him bringing this issue to my attention.
As move forward, I will work with him to ensure that the USDA takes
into consideration the existing data and research, and completes the
study within a reasonable timeframe.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chairman for his commitment, and appreciate
his willingness to work with me on this important initiative.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year
2001 Appropriations Act for Agriculture,

[[Page S7373]]

Rural Development, and Related Agencies (S. 2536). Included in this
bill is funding which will, among other things, assist our nation's
farmers, aid rural development, preserve delicate ecosystems and
provide food assistance to our nation's most needy individuals. I
support these measures, but I also realize that there are urgent
agricultural emergencies which cannot be covered by the scope of the
annual appropriations process.
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Michigan is correct in stating that
frequently there exist many agricultural emergencies which are best
addressed by the action of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. One agricultural
emergency that currently affects my home state of Michigan, and which
threatens livestock in the Upper Midwest is bovine tuberculosis (TB).
Due to a host of factors, Michigan is the only state in the Union where
bovine TB has actually been transferred from livestock into the wild.
Most frequently, this disease has been transferred from cattle to
members of the Cervid family, such as whitetail deer. Deer then are
able to transfer TB to herds of cattle, wild animals or humans. As a
result of this disease, neighboring states have restricted the entry of
Michigan cattle, farmers have been required to test their cattle for
this disease and some livestock producers have had to eradicate their
herds. I would ask the Senator from Wisconsin, if he believes that the
matter of bovine TB constitutes an emergency.
Mr. KOHL. I agree with the Senator from Michigan that bovine TB
constitutes an agricultural emergency.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I would hope that the
Secretary of Agriculture would declare an emergency regarding bovine
TB. Doing so would assist areas where this disease is present and
prevent the further spread of bovine TB.

Red River Trade Council

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Agriculture
Diversity Project, which is administered by the Red River Trade Council
through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service. The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has funded this
program in the past, and I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee for their support.
As my colleagues know, one of the areas of economy that has not
shared in the current economic boom is agriculture. The farmers and
those who live and operate businesses in rural America are struggling
financially to maintain not only a reasonable standard of living, but
also the preservation of a rural lifestyle. They are desperate to find
ways that will allow them to stay and to make a living in rural
America.
The Agriculture Diversification Project now underway seeks to add
value to existing crop production, establish high value crop
alternatives to those crops traditionally grown in the region, develop
processing facilities, and create markets for both new crops and the
value added products. One added dimension to the program in Fiscal Year
2001 will be an Internet-based information resource for farmers and
other rural residents intended for those who are interested in a
sustainable rural economy through entrepreneurship, product
development, and marketing. This new aspect of the project will demand
additional resources above what the Subcommittee provided in this bill.
I hope that we might be able to provide at least $500,000 for this
project--which is the level of funding that the House provided in its
bill.
Mr. DASCHLE. I am grateful that the Committee has recognized the need
for this project in the past and also in the legislation being
considered today. However, with the expansion of this project beyond
the original states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota to
also include Iowa, and Nebraska, and to establish the Internet resource
a higher level of funding for this project is necessary.
Does the Subcommittee Chairman, the senior Senator form Mississippi,
agree that the House level of $500,000 would be a more appropriate
funding level for this program?
Mr. COCHRAN. I understand that this project is a priority for the
Minority Leader and the Senator from North Dakota. I will work in
conference to consider $500,000 for the Red River Trade Council's
Agricultural Diversity Project in the final version of the Agriculture
Appropriations bill.

Land-Grant University System

Mrs. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Nation's Land-Grant University
system is very fortunate to have historically black land-grant colleges
and universities like Southern University of my home State of
Louisiana, Tuskegee University of Alabama and Alcorn State of
Mississippi, to name just three of them. These universities were
granted Land-Grant status under the Evans-Allen law enacted by Congress
in 1890. An amendment accepted in House of Representatives during
debate on the Agricultural Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001
increases formula funds for research and extension science performed at
these universities in a total amount of $6.8 million. There are 18 such
historically black universities in America which are part of the entire
national land-grant university system.
The historically black land-grant universities play a very special
and unique role in our nation. Since 1988, the base formula funding
provided to our nation's historically black colleges has eroded.
Funding provided to these institutions through this mechanism has
remained flat from the previous fiscal year. Investing in the 1890s
Land-Grant institutions is a wise investment indeed. Together, our
historically black land-grant universities comprise a unique asset with
the multi-cultural depth to enrich the research, extension and
education capacity of the nation. Strengthening minority serving
institutions and making them equal partners in the Land-Grant System
are key elements toward improving minority access to USDA programs. Our
universities need a significant boost in infrastructure investment to
fully participate and compete for research, extension and education
funding. The amendment passed by the House of Representatives would
increase base (formula) funding and as a result would be a significant
step in that direction. I appreciate Senator Cochran's recognizing the
importance of this funding and hope you will give strong consideration
during conference to acceding to the amendment passed by the House of
Representatives. $6.8 million divided among the 18 historically black
institutions is not much, but it does mean a great deal to these
institutions and the people they serve through their research and
extension programs.
Mr. COCHRAN. I recognize the need to provide adequate support for the
1890 institutions. The Senator will be pleased to know that this bill
provides increases above the fiscal year 2000 level for the 1890
institution's capacity building grants program and the facilities
grants program. I share the Senator's interest in these institutions
and will keep her comments in mind as we work to enhance funding for
these programs in conference.
Mrs. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Credit Models

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to ask the Chairman about a small
provision in report language, under the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The report encourages the agency to interface with a
consortium of universities on developing carbon dioxide emissions
trading credit models. I am just seeking clarification on the academic
nature of the efforts described and the intent of the Committee.
In numerous appropriations bills and reports, the Committee and the
Senate have reiterated the position, consistent with the unanimously-
passed Byrd-Hagel resolution, that the Kyoto Protocol on global climate
change and control of greenhouse gases has not been approved by the
Senate and must not be implemented by the Administration through the
regulatory backdoor. Every year, language to this effect has been
included in a growing number of appropriations laws, including the
Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000.
My question arises because emissions trading is inextricably, and
most visibly, linked to the limits envisioned in the Kyoto Protocol. I
assume there is no intention in the report language to be inconsistent
with our longstanding position on Kyoto and no implied endorsement of
emissions trading. I

[[Page S7374]]

would read the report as simply encouraging the agency in giving
technical assistance to an academic research project relevant to
agriculture.
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator has correctly characterized the Committee's
intent.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes
about my amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill now before
the Senate. The amendment identifies vital funding for Indian Country
in four programs under the Rural Community Advancement Program. The
cosponsors of the amendment are Senators Campbell, Inouye, Domenici,
Leahy, Daschle, Dorgan, Feinstein, Bennett, Murray, Johnson, Hatch,
Snowe, and Conrad.
First, I want to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for their
work on this Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This bill provides
funding for a number of programs that are vital to my state of New
Mexico and to the nation.
The rural development programs funded in this bill are especially
important for a rural state like New Mexico. Through a variety of grant
and loan programs, rural development is helping to make sure that our
smaller communities are not being left behind in basic infrastructure,
in quality of housing, in economical utilities, in community
facilities, or in business development. Rural development is making
tremendous progress in improving the quality of life of our smaller
communities and in Indian Country. The basic health and well being of
rural people in New Mexico, as well as their economic future, are much
brighter as a result of the rural development programs.
This amendment is straight forward. The bill already provides $24
million for tribal programs, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member for providing this important set aside. The amendment simply
sets the priorities for how the existing tribal funding in the bill
should be divided among the various Rural Development Programs. Under
our amendment, $1 million is set aside for rural business opportunity
grants, $5 million for community facilities for tribal colleges, $15
million for grants for drinking water and waste disposal systems, and
$3 million for rural business enterprise grants. These priorities have
the support of the National Congress of American Indians and the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium.
I ask unanimous consent that letters from the NCAI and AIHEC
supporting our amendment be included in the Record at the conclusion of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. The $15 million in water and wastewater grants in this
amendment include a special provision that allows the department to
provide up to 100 percent of the cost of a project for the most
economically disadvantaged tribes that can't otherwise qualify for a
loan as normally required. A similar grant program was first
established by Congress last year to address the urgent needs in Indian
Country for basic water and waste water systems. I am pleased that the
Rural Utilities Service has moved quickly this year to implement this
new program and we are seeing immediate results. To date, 26 grants
have been awarded to tribes in 14 states--from Maine to California. The
average grant is a little more than $400,000. The RUS already has in
hand requests for many millions of dollars in important projects for
next year. This amendment will provide the funding to address these
urgent needs.
In addition, the amendment provides $5 million in much needed funding
for facilities construction and maintenance at our 33 tribal colleges
that comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, AIHEC.
Many of these institutions are operating in donated, abandoned, and in
some cases, even condemned structures. Hazards include leaking roofs,
asbestos insulation, exposed and substandard wiring, and crumbling
foundations. Tribal colleges receive little or no funding from the
states. These institutions are located on federal trust land and are a
federal responsibility. The $5 million provided in this amendment will
begin to address the backlog in facility requirements for tribal
colleges.
The development of new businesses in Indian Country is one key to
self sufficiency for Native American communities. The amendment
provides $3 million in rural business enterprise grants to support the
development of small and emerging tribal business enterprises. These
funds can be used to develop land, construct buildings and factories,
purchase equipment, provide road access and parking areas, extend basic
utilities, or provide technical assistance, startup and operating
costs, or working capital for new business.
Finally, the amendment provides a $1 million set aside for tribal
rural business opportunity grants. Tribes may use these funds to
analyze business opportunities that will make use of the existing
economic and human resources in Indian Country. Funding can also be
used to train tribal entrepreneurs and to establish business support
centers. Unemployment rates in Indian Country are the highest in the
nation, sometimes topping 50 percent. Development of new business
opportunities on tribal lands is one of the keys to improving the
standard of living in Native American communities.
Congress established the rural development programs to assist in the
economic development of rural areas of the nation with the highest
percentage of low-income residents. Today, some of the most
economically disadvantaged communities in America are in Indian
Country. The $24 million set aside in this bill for tribal programs
represents only a tiny percentage of the total funding available for
Rural Community Advancement Programs. This funding will begin to
address the needs of some of America's poorest communities.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for their
support for the tribal funding in this bill. These are important
programs to help deal with the critical needs of our tribes. I hope the
Senate will support our amendment.

Exhibit 1

National Congress of

American Indians,

Washington, DC, May 24, 2000.

Re Support for Bingaman Tribal Amendment

Dear Senator:The National Congress of American Indians
(NCAI), the oldest and most representatives Indian advocacy
organization, respectfully request your support for an
amendment to be offered by Senator Jeff Bingaman to S. 2536,
the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill during full Senate
consideration. This amendment would designate the $24 million
currently proposed for water and wastewater loans and grants
in the Indian Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs into
four grant programs: 1) Rural Business Opportunity Grants; 2)
Community Facilities Grants for Tribal College Improvements;
3) Drinking Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Economically
Disadvantaged Tribes; and 4) Rural Business Enterprise
Grants.
NCAI supports this amendment because it designates the
funds for grant programs that are targeted to the specific
rural development needs of tribes and tribal colleges, rather
than for the general purpose of benefiting federally
recognized Native American tribes.
In FY2000, Senator Bingaman was instrumental in securing
the original set aside of $12 million for the Indian RUS
program. To date, 19 Indian projects have been funded, with
five requests on hand, and an additional four that are or
forthcoming.
NCAI respectfully request your support of the Bingaman
Tribal amendment when it is offered for full Senate
consideration. If you have any questions in regards to this
amendment, please contact me or Victoria Wright, NCAI
Legislative Associate at (202) 466-7767.
Sincerely,
JoAnn K. Chase,
Executive Director.
____

American Indian Higher

Education Consortium,

Alexandria, VA, July 2000.
Dear Senator: The 33 Tribal Colleges and Universities that
comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC) respectfully request your support of the Bingaman
amendment to be offered during Senate consideration of the
FY01 Agriculture Appropriations bill (S. 2536/H.R. 4461).
This amendment would simply allocate the proposed $24 million
available for loans and grants to federally recognized
American Indian tribes through the Rural Community
Advancement Program into four grant programs: 1) Rural
Business Opportunity Grants; 2) Community Facilities Grants
for Tribal College Improvements; 3) Drinking Water and Water
Disposal Systems for Economically Disadvantaged Tribes; and
4) Rural Business Enterprise Grants.
Tribal Colleges serve as community centers, providing
libraries, tribal archives, child care centers, nutrition and
substance abuse counseling and a broad range of other vitally
needed facilities to their rural communities. Yet, many of
our colleges are still

[[Page S7375]]

operating in trailers, renovated gymnasiums, reclaimed
abandoned BIA facilities with leaking roofs, exposed and
substandard wiring and crumbling foundations. The Federal
government has never funded authorized facilities programs
for the Tribal Colleges. The Rural Community Programs were
created to assist in the development of essential community
facilities located in rural areas with a high concentration
of low-income residents. This is by definition of the
reservation communities served by the Tribal Colleges.
Our 33 colleges, 26,000 students and the 250 tribal nations
we serve are extremely grateful to Senator Bingaman for
championing this effort and for your support. The inclusion
of the amendment will be a first step in bringing the Tribal
Colleges much needed resources to address critical facilities
needs.
Respectfully,
Veronica N. Gonzales,
Executive Director.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the agricultural appropriations bill is
very important bill--it provides federal assistance to our nation's
farming communities, funds social service programs for women and
children, and addresses natural resource management needs across the
country.
I commend Chairman Cochran and other members of the Agriculture
Appropriations subcommittee for their hard work to complete this year's
bill. So, it is with regret that I had to vote against passage of this
bill.
Mr. President, approval of the annual budget is among our most
serious responsibilities. We are the trustees of billions of taxpayer
dollars, and we should evaluate every spending decision with great
deliberation and without prejudice.
Unfortunately, each year, we find new ways to violate budget policy.
Appropriators have employed every sidestepping method in the book to
circumvent Senate rules and common budget principles that are supposed
to strictly guide the appropriations process. The excessive fodder and
trickery have never been greater, resulting in the shameless waste of
millions of taxpayer dollars. Included in this bill is more than $243
million in pork-barrel spending and additional ``emergency spending''
at the cost of $2 billion.
Traditional earmarks run rampant in this bill and its accompanying
report for unrequested and low-priority spending. Other sly methods are
also utilized to secure funding for parochial projects. If a direct
amount is not earmarked, then the committee has covertly directed the
USDA to grant special consideration to certain projects that would
otherwise be subject to a competitive grant review. Appropriations
bills are also popular targets to attach policy riders which clearly
have no place in budget bills.
Another $2 billion in designated ``emergency'' spending was also
added to this bill for various crop and disaster related assistance.
This ``emergency'' spending is in addition to billions already spent in
the past few years for farm relief spending, as well as other
supplemental appropriations included in the military conference report
for fiscal year 2000, and several billion more included in the recently
passed crop insurance reform bill.
I rise today to tell my colleagues that I object.
I object to the $243 million in directed earmarks for special
interest projects in this bill. I object to sidestepping the
legislative process by attaching erroneous riders to an appropriations
bill. I object to speeding through appropriations bills without
adequate review by all members. I object to budget gimmickry practiced
by attaching non-germane and non-priority items to appropriations bills
and designating them as ``emergencies'' to avoid exceeding budget
allocations.
It is no surprise that many of these earmarks are included for
political glamour rather than practical purposes. Members can go back
to their districts to ride in public parades and garner votes at the
expense of average citizens who are struggling to maintain minimum wage
jobs.

Again, some of these items are not particularly objectionable on an
individual basis. However, I am merely objecting to the way these
projects have been selectively identified and prioritized for earmarks
when so many other needs around our country go unaddressed. Other items
clearly do not belong in this particular bill and, therefore, could be
subject to budget points-of-order.
Numerous earmarks are included that are of questionable relation or
priority to the purposes of this bill. A few examples are:
$20 million for construction of a Los Angeles replacement laboratory
and office space project in California;
$3.5 million for the Delta Teachers Academy;
$5 million for demonstration housing grants for agriculture,
aquaculture, and seafood processing works in Mississippi and Alaska;
$500,000 for cooperative efforts with the Claude E. Phillips
Herbarium in Delaware;
$87,000 for North American Studies in Texas;
$436,000 for a clean air PM-10 study in Washington;
$2,150,000 for a rural health program in Mississippi to train health
care workers to serve in rural areas; and,
An additional $520,000 for seven additional inspectors at the U.S.-
Mexico Border at the San Diego ports of entry.
Again, Mr. President, these projects may be meritorious and helpful
to the designated communities, but they do not appear appropriate to
tag onto this year's agriculture spending bill. This appropriations
measure is intended to address farmers, women, children and rural
communities with the greatest need. Yet, by diverting millions to non-
agricultural needs, we fail in this responsibility, forcing Congress to
pass ad-hoc emergency spending bills with billions in farm relief and
bail-outs for producers who cannot pay back their federal loans.
I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending
priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this
agriculture bill. Had we more responsibility allocated funding in these
appropriations bills, we certainly could have avoided this type of
egregious pork-barrel and emergency ad hoc spending which cuts deep
into the budget surplus.
Mr. President, I have compiled a list of objectionable provisions in
this bill and its accompanying report. However, the list is too lengthy
to include in the Record, but will be available from my Senate office.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American food supply is one of the
safest in the world--but it is not safe enough. Over 75 million
Americans a year are stricken by disease caused by contaminated food
they eat. Each year, 9,000 people--mostly the very young and the very
old--die as a result. The costs of medical treatment and losses in
productivity from these illnesses are as high as $37 billion annually.
The emergency of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and the
increase in the number of organisms resistant to antibiotics, are
compounding these problems and making foodborne illnesses an
increasingly serious public health challenge.
Americans deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe,
regardless of their source. Yet too many citizens today are at
unnecessary risk of foodborne diseases. This Congress can make a
difference. The FDA requested a budget increase of $30 million in 2001
for its Food Safety Initiative activities. With these additional funds,
the FDA can improve its inspection of high-risk food establishments and
strengthen its laboratory capabilities. Without this funding, the
agency will conduct 700 fewer inspections next year. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of protecting our
food supply by granting the FDA the majority of its requested increase
for food safety. The amendment I propose will give the FDA the
additional $6 million it needs for these efforts.
In response to improved surveillance and increased sampling and
testing, illnesses from the most common bacterial foodborne pathogens
decreased by 21 percent from 1997 to 1999. As a result, 855,000 fewer
Americans each year suffer from foodborne diseases. But contaminated
food still remains a significant public health problem.
Recently, a new strain of an organism contaminated oysters in Texas,
and caused an epidemic of diarrhea. This year, the FDA recalled several
smoked fish products manufactured in New York because of outbreaks of
disease. In March, 500 college students in Massachusetts became ill
with Norwalk-like virus. Each year there are also at least 4700 cases
of Salmonella in Massachusetts. We must do more to protect our citizens
from foodborne diseases.

[[Page S7376]]

Imported foods are a significant part of the problem and often pose
especially serious health risks. Americans are consuming foods from
other countries at increasing rates. Since 1992, the number of food
imports has tripled. At that time, the FDA was able to inspect only 8
percent of these imports. Since then the rate of FDA inspections of
imported food has dropped to less than 1 percent, because resources did
not increase for monitoring these imports.
Other countries have often not implemented food safety protections
comparable to those in the United States, and general sanitary
conditions are often poor. As a consequence, foods from such countries
are more likely to be contaminated with disease-producing organisms. In
1995, 242 people contracted Salmonella from alfalfa sprouts imported
from the Netherlands. In 1996, over 1,400 people became ill from
contaminated raspberries from Guatemala. Just this year, infected
shrimp from Vietnam caused Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks.
In earlier decades, diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera were
the focus of food safety concerns. Today diseases caused by dangerous
new strains of E. coli have become primary causes of foodborne illness.
These new organisms necessitate increased investment in research,
technology, and surveillance to protect the safety of our food supply.
Food safety efforts are also especially important to protect the
growing number of individuals in vulnerable populations, such as young
children, the elderly, those with lowered immunity from HIV, and those
with inadequate access to health care.
By providing the FDA with the necessary resources to combat foodborne
diseases, we can protect tens of millions of our fellow citizens across
the country each year. Investment in food safety is an investment in
the health of every American. Congress should give the FDA the
resources it needs in order to ensure the safety of the food we eat.
The amendment I am proposing is a major step to meet this challenge,
and I urge the Senate to approve it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for and
cosponsorship of the Hatch-Durbin amendment to the Agriculture
Appropriations bill to increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs
(OGD) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $2 million.
As we all know, the high costs of prescription drugs are on the minds
of Americans because having access to affordable prescription drugs is
essential for people of all ages. Over the next 5 years, the patents of
name brand drugs with approximately $22 billion in sales will expire.
Consumers will save millions of dollars from generic prescription drug
alternatives. This will help to alleviate cost pressures facing some of
our most vulnerable citizens--seniors and the chronically ill.
The FDA will be able to help make drugs more affordable only if it
has adequate resources to review and approve generic drug applications
in a timely manner. In recent years, I have worked with Senators
Specter, Harkin, and other cosponsors of this amendment to urge our
colleagues to increase funds for the Office of Generic Drugs. These
efforts have paid off in a reduction in the backlog of generic drug
applications. Unfortunately, the President did not request an increase
for the Office of Generic Drugs for the 2001 fiscal year. However, the
workload for the office continues to increase and for the first time in
several years, the backlog of applications has increased rather than
continue to decline.
An increase of $2 million for the Office of Generic Drugs will be
used for training and the upgrade of information technology systems
that will allow for the electronic submission and review of generic
drug applications.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. This
amendment will put the review record of the Office of Generic Drugs
back on course.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year
2001.
The Senate-reported bill provides $75.1 billion in new budget
authority (BA) and $39.4 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 $64.2 billion in BA
and $46.7 billion in outlays for FY 2001. 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 $64.4 billion in BA and $46.7 billion in outlays. Within this
amount, $14.9 billion in BA and $15.0 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 $315
million in BA and $6 million in outlays below the subcommittee's 302(b)
allocation. It is $75 million in BA below and $131 million in outlays
above the 2000 level for discretionary spending, and $630 million in BA
and $77 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.
I urge adoption of the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2536, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 2001 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 2001 in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority..................... 14,539 49,616 64,155
Outlays.............................. 14,961 31,775 46,736
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... 14,584 49,616 64,470
Outlays.............................. 14,967 31,775 46,742
2000 level:
Budget authority..................... 14,614 50,295 64,909
Outlays.............................. 14,830 33,088 47,918
President's request
Budget authority..................... 15,169 49,616 64,785
Outlays.............................. 15,038 31,775 46,813

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... -315 ......... -315
Outlays.............................. -6 ......... -6
2000 level:
Budget authority..................... -75 -679 -754
Outlays.............................. 131 -1,313 -1,182
President's request
Budget authority..................... -630 ......... -630
Outlays.............................. -77 ......... -77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4461, the FY2001 Agriculture appropriations bill. I commend Senator
Cochran for bringing forward what I believe is a solid bill to fund
those programs of greatest importance to production agriculture and
rural America. The task to complete this legislation is never easy, but
the Senator from Mississippi has again worked to craft a bill that
serves the states of all members of the Senate.
In this era of tight budget caps, crafting this legislation becomes
more difficult each year. Despite these difficulties, the chairman has
still found a way to provide increases in funding for several vital
programs, including:
Farm Service Agency Staffing +$20 million from FY00; Conservation
Programs +$63.4 million; Food Safety Inspection Service +$29 million;
and Agricultural Research +60.4 million.
Mr. President, I know that many Senators and our constituents are
often upset to see increases in funding for federal staffing. But, I
must tell you that this increase in funding for FSA staffing is
essential.
The Farm Service Agency is responsible for distributing all AMTA,
LDP, and market loss payments and programs to our producers. With the
low prices of the past two years, these staff have faced a tremendous
workload. These programs are essential to our producers and without
proper staffing the delivery of these programs will be delayed. This is
funding that will benefit our producers.
The productivity of today's U.S. agricultural machine is a modern day
miracle that is a model for the rest of the world. We grow more food,
for more people, on less land each year. Much of this productivity is a
direct result of the commitment Congress has provided to agricultural
research in the past. Additional research and productivity

[[Page S7377]]

will be essential, as the world's population continues to grow in the
next fifty years. The U.S. must be a leader in this area, and I thank
the chairman for his commitment to research funding in this
legislation.
In addition, I want to thank the chairman for the additional funding
provided for the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). Kansas is the
largest beef packing state in the country and beef accounts for nearly
\1/2\ the farm income in my state each year. We have many small plants
and lockers located throughout the state, and we have the ``Big 4''
packers located within a 100-mile radius of each other in the
southwestern part of the state. These plants have experienced inspector
shortages at several points during the past year. These shortages
result in reduced production chain speeds, which results in lost income
for the processors, and fewer cattle being slaughtered which directly
affects the pocketbooks of my cowboys and cattle ranchers, I am hopeful
FSIS will use this money to hire inspectors and locate them in those
areas where they are most needed.

I think it is also important to point out the significantly larger
amount of funding for USDA agricultural export programs in the Senate
bill compared to the House Agricultural Appropriations bill. We need
full funding of these programs if our producers are to continue gaining
additional world market shares, and I am hopeful the Senate position
will prevail in conference with the House.
Finally, I thank the chairman for the funding he has provided for
continued wheat and grain sorghum research in the State of Kansas
through the Agricultural Research Service and Kansas State University.
Kansas is the No. 1 producer of both wheat and grain sorghum in the
U.S. Thus, the two crops play a vital role in our state's agricultural
economy. This funding will allow us to continue research that allows us
to combat emerging diseases in these crops and to find better ways to
market them as well.
Again, I thank the Chairman for his efforts on this legislation. As
always, he and staff--Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, Les
Spivey, and Hunt Shipman--have taken very difficult budget numbers and
have gone out of their way to address the needs of the constituents of
all members of the Senate. They should be applauded for their work, and
I urge my colleagues to support quick passage of this important piece
of legislation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, during consideration of the 1990 Farm
Bill, a provision was inserted granting the USDA Graduate School the
ability to enter non-competitive, interagency agreements for the
provision of training services to other agencies. The Graduate School
pursues and enters into these side agreements with other Federal
agencies on a non-competitive basis. The private sector is shut out,
unable to bid on these contracts.
Section 1669 enables the United States Department of Agriculture
Graduate School (Graduate School) to accept non-competitive agreements
from federal agencies to provide training and other human resource
services. The provision limits--and even discourages--competition in
contracting, the cornerstone of fair and equitable pricing in the award
of government contracts.
Despite its name and 80-year history, the Graduate School is not a
part of the federal government. The Comptroller General of the United
States ruled that the Graduate School is a ``Non-Appropriated Fund
Instrumentality'' (NAFI). NAFIs do not receive budget authority or
appropriations from Congress and are supported entirely by fees or
prices for their services. Like other NAFIs the Graduate School is not
subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the Freedom of
Information Act, or other laws and regulations governing the operations
of federal agencies. The Comptroller General ruled that the Graduate
School, as a NAFI, is not a proper recipient of interagency order from
Government agencies for training services. And under law, these orders
are only permissible if a commercial enterprise can't provide the goods
or services as conveniently or cheaply.
Various federal laws do indeed provide preferential treatment for
economically disadvantaged firms in the award of government contracts.
Under these programs administered and monitored by federal agencies,
such as the Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, and
Department of Commerce, many small businesses, minority-owned
enterprises, and firms in labor surplus areas qualify by meeting
established regulatory standards.
The Graduate School, however is not economically disadvantaged. The
Graduate School earned net profits exceeding $13 million over the past
five years. Effective on the close of its 1998 fiscal year on September
30, its net worth was $18.5 million; its aggregate retained earnings
(1993-1998) were $13.3 million, and its current asset/liability ratio
was 2.01. In spite of this financially advantageous position, the
Graduate School pays ``bargain rate'' non-profit postage, receives
donated space and services from federal agencies, and pays no federal
income tax.
Only the Graduate School benefits from the preferential treatment
afforded by Section 1669.
The Graduate School has government subsidized facilities in
Washington, D.C., Chicago, Philadelphia, Honolulu, Atlanta, Dallas, and
San Francisco. It offers a range of business, finance and management
courses that could be offered by hundreds of local community colleges
or private training firms.
The Graduate School benefits at the expense of small and large tax-
paying businesses and is not selling any commodity they could not
provide. Indeed, many large and small-business training enterprises are
ready, willing, and able to compete for the Graduate School's share of
agency training budgets.
Mr. President, competition requires a level playing field. Without
it, American taxpayers take the hit. And agencies and taxpayers are not
receiving the benefits for quality and pricing that competition
provides. In Section 1669 restrictive, narrowly based, preferential
legislation undermines proven forces of the market economy to determine
fair and equitable prices. Section 1669 of the 1990 Agriculture Act (PL
101-624) must be repealed.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed by a margin of
74-21 the Jeffords-Dorgan amendment to allow for importation of FDA-
approved prescription medicines by licensed pharmacists and drug
wholesalers. This amendment addresses a very important issue for
American consumers, especially for senior citizens who must pay for
their medicines out of their own pockets. The same medications sold in
the United States are also sold in Canada and other countries, often at
substantially lower prices. This amendment has the potential to save
American consumers millions of dollars by giving them access to their
medicines at these lower prices at their local pharmacies.
I am pleased that this amendment has the support of the National
Community Pharmacists Association, and I ask unanimous consent that a
letter of support from the NCPA be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Community

Pharmacists Association,

July 17, 2000.
Re H.R. 4461--Ag Appropriations Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone et
al., amendment.

Dear Senator: On behalf of the independent pharmacists in
your state, I would like to express the National Community
Pharmacists Associations' endorsement of the strongly
bipartisan cited amendment that safely allows American
consumers to benefit from international price competition for
prescription medicines.
The Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone amendment is designed to
permit the importation of prescription drugs by American
pharmacies so long as the drugs meet Food and Drug
Administration standards, including compliance with current
good manufacturing practices. Such FDA-approved drugs are
sold in Canada, the United Kingdom, EU countries, and other
countries for prices considerable lower than the best prices
available to retailers in this country. We agree with its
sponsors that it ``is a fair commonsense, free-market
approach to lowering drug prices for constituents while
benefiting small businesses'' and that ``it's outrageous that
Americans should have to resort to crossing borders to
purchase their prescriptions. We should be able to buy our
medications at reasonable prices from pharmacies in our
neighborhoods.''
This amendment encourages and supports the role of
pharmacists in our health care system and strengthens their
ability to continue to provide affordable, critical products
and services. It also will likely encourage

[[Page S7378]]

more employers to continue and even initiate prescription
drug coverage for their employees.
The objectives of this amendment are fully compatible with
the 1988, Prescription Drug Marketing Act [PL 100-293]
authored by your former colleague Spark Matsunaga and the
dean of the House of Representatives, Representative John
Dingell. This law in an effort to prevent the importation of
counterfeit or adulterated prescription drugs banned
reimportation of all prescription drugs, except by
manufacturers. The proposed amendment would authorize
importation including reimportation by legitimate
pharmacists, pharmacists buying groups and wholesalers. Under
the amendment, pharmacies and wholesalers importing drugs
would still have to meet the same standards set by FDA, which
allowed $12.8 billion worth of Rx drugs to be imported into
the U.S. by manufacturers in 1997.
Obviously, imports by legitimate businesses including the
independent pharmacies will not increase counterfeit drugs
and will not put the health of American consumers at risk. To
claim otherwise would at best be deceptive.
According to the United States International Trade
Commission staff, more than 16% of the prescription drugs
consumed by American patients were in fact imported. Typical,
would be a nasal inhaler for asthma patients whose labeling
reads ``Assembled in Great Britain from products manufactured
in Great Britain, Sweden, and Finland and manufactured for
Astra USA, Inc. Westborough, MA.''
Further, the amendment provides for a paper trail to assure
that the drugs are properly transported and stored; and to
prevent the importation of counterfeit, adulterated or other
inappropriate prescription drugs. It also allows for testing
of imported drugs when appropriate.
It is noteworthy that both the FDA and the PMA (now PhRMA)
testified against and otherwise opposed the 1988
reimportation provision. Now the drug maker organization has
done a 180, claiming that limiting reimports to them protects
the public and disingenuously claiming that community retail
pharmacy is not a competitive marketplace and that,
consequently, any lower acquisition cost available to
community pharmacies would benefit consumers only if
pharmacies were forced through price controls to pass on
savings to patients.
The truth is that the community pharmacy marketplace has
virtually all of the characteristics of a healthy competitive
marketplace. It has a significant number of widely dispersed,
diversely owned businesses that are readily available to
consumers. These competitive businesses predictably have
modest gross margins or markups and low profits. What these
businesses do not have is access to fairly priced branded Rxs
based on economies of scale. Drugmakers, through
discriminatory pricing practices, are responsible for this
unhealthy characteristic of the community pharmacy
marketplace.
In addition to the strong and growing number of bipartisan
cosponsors, Congress has already taken key steps in support
of the Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone approach. On April 6, 2000,
the Senate approved the Gorton/Jeffords Sense of the Senate
resolution that the ``cost disparity between identical
prescription drugs sold in the United States, Canada and
Mexico should be reduced or eliminated.'' On Monday, July 10,
2000, two relevant and significant amendments were approved
by the House of Representatives on the Agriculture
Appropriation bill, H.R. 4461. The first amendment was
approved 363 to 12. It forbids the FDA from enforcing the ban
on reimportation. The second amendment was approved 370 to
12. It prevents any FDA action regarding prescription drugs
manufactured in FDA approved facilities in the US, Canada and
Mexico. Notably, the House Commerce Committee Chairman and
its five subcommittee chairs voted for both of these
amendments.
A recent survey by the Senior Citizens League found that
88% of seniors favor the Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone amendment
to allow safe prescription drugs to be imported from Canada
and other countries.
The small businesses, independent health care professionals
we represent are the preferred choice of American consumers.
Our members function in the market in a variety of forms.
They do business as single stores ranging from apothecaries
to full line high volume pharmacies; as independent chains
(e.g. 100 pharmacies) and as franchises (e.g. Medicine
Shoppe, 1200 pharmacies). Whatever the form of business
entity, however, independent pharmacists are the decision
makers for this wide variety of NCPA member companies.
The most in depth consumer survey to date conducted by
Consumer Reports, involving 15,000 consumers, published last
fall, found that consumers preferred independently owned
pharmacies for several reasons: Independents provided more
personal attention; Independents provided more useful
information about both prescription and nonprescription
drugs; Independent druggists were seen as more professional,
more sensitive to families' needs, and easier to talk to;
Independents kept consumers waiting less time for drugs, had
prescriptions ready for pickup more often, and provided out-
of-stock medicine faster
Our 1200 plus independently owned members in the Medicine
Shoppes franchise were ranked second; the supermarket
drugstores were third, the mass merchandisers were fourth;
and the worst stores overall were the big corporate run
chains. No preference was expressed for mail order.
The community pharmacist of today is simultaneously a
health care professional and a small businessperson. As
owners, managers, and employees of independent pharmacies,
our member's 30,000 pharmacies and our 75,000 are committed
to provide legislative and regulatory initiatives, which are
designed to protect the public; to provide them a level
playing field and a fair chance to compete; and to provide
quality pharmacists services to your constituents. The
Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone et. al. amendments with its safe,
but free trade approach, meets each of these criteria.
We urge you to vote for the Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone
amendment to H.R. 4461. It will unleash market forces to help
reduce the cost of safe prescription drugs for all of your
constituents, including seniors.
Warm Regards,

John M. Rector,

Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs and General Counsel.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Cochran, my chairman,
and his fine staff for the efficient completion of S. 2536. My friend
from Mississippi has conducted this debate--as he always does--in a
balanced, fair, and non partisan manner. He is a gentleman and a
friend, and it is an honor and a pleasure to work with him.
The bill we just passed includes funding for a wide variety of
programs important to the American people. This is especially true now
due to economic conditions in rural America which have not kept pace
with the general prosperity enjoyed by most Americans.
The bill also responds quickly and adequately to the very real crisis
that has hit the dairy industry across this nation. Last December, milk
prices dropped unexpectedly and dramatically. Today, the base price
farmers receive for their milk is $9.46. The average base price for
1998 was $14.21, and the average for 1999 was $12.43.
Those cold numbers cannot express the hard damage that has been done
to dairy farmers and their families throughout my State, and throughout
the nation. They add up to families that have stopped milking after
generations, and rural towns that are collapsing as farms disappear.
America's dairyland is in real danger of becoming a wasteland.
And today with this bill, the Senate has responded with emergency
payments to the small farmers hardest hit by this disaster. I am proud
of this institution for putting aside regional differences and
interests, and for seeing this provision as--not just helping Wisconsin
farmers, or Vermont farmers, or Pennsylvanian farmers--but as helping
American families.
I also thank the Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, for his vital
assistance in securing these emergency dairy payments. At the end of
last year, when we spent a great deal of the Senate's time on dairy
issues, he listened to me and to the unique struggles of Wisconsin
dairy farmers. He said then he would do whatever he could to help. And
he has. He is a man who speaks some of the most inspiring and powerful
words spoken on the Senate floor--and he is a man of those words. It is
an honor to serve with him.
This is a good bill and, again, we should all congratulate Senator
Cochran for his fine leadership of our subcommittee. I also want to
thank the members of my staff who have helped make this process run as
smoothly as it has this year: Paul Bock, my chief of staff, and Ben
Miller, who is new on my staff this year, have done a fine job. Special
thanks goes to the subcommittee's minority clerk, Galen Fountain,
without whom I do not believe there could be an Agriculture bill in the
Senate. His knowledge of the subject, his patience, his loyalty, and
his work ethic are legendary around here, and deservedly so.
I look forward to moving this bill through conference quickly, and
having a solid Agriculture budget in place well before October 1st.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are no more amendments. I
appreciate very much the cooperation of all Senators. We are ready to
go to third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the
question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of
the bill.

[[Page S7379]]

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read
the third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Did we just pass the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not yet announced the final
passage of the bill.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning),
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs.
Murray), are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

YEAS--79

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--13

Allard
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Gramm
Kyl
Lieberman
Mack
McCain
Nickles
Smith (NH)
Torricelli
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--7

Boxer
Bunning
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Murray
The bill (H.R. 4461), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate insists on its amendments and
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.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to express my deepest appreciation
for the excellent cooperation of our professional staff members of the
Appropriations Committee. Our subcommittee staff, in particular, led by
our chief clerk, Rebecca Davies, and other staff members, including
Martha Scott Poindexter; Hunt Shipman; Les Spivey; and Coy Neal; the
minority professional staff, Galen Fountain and Carole Geagley; the
full committee staff member, Jay Kimmitt; Senator Kohl's personal staff
members, Ben Miller and Paul Bock. They were all enormously helpful in
the handling of this legislation and the passage of this legislation
tonight in the Senate. For all of their assistance, I am deeply
grateful.
I also have to thank Senator Herb Kohl, the distinguished ranking
member of the Democratic side of the aisle on this subcommittee.
I appreciate the able assistance we received during the final,
crucial stages of the handling of this bill from Senator Lott, the
majority leader; Senator Stevens, chairman of the full Committee on
Appropriations; and Senator Reid of Nevada, who provided assistance all
during the handling of the bill on the floor of the Senate today. We
appreciate all of the good work they did. We also thank all Senators
for permitting us to pass this legislation tonight.

____________________