[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.

                          ____________________