[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7898-S7900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2985. A bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to 
authorize the Commodity Credit Corporation to reallocate certain 
unobligated funds from the export enhancement program to other 
agricultural trade development and assistance programs; to the 
Committee on Finance.


     providing school lunches to hungry children--the agricultural 
      flexibility in export development and assistance act of 2000

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you had happened to be in the Senate 
Dining Room a few months ago, you might have seen a group of people 
having lunch and wondered what in the world would gather Ambassador 
George McGovern, Senators Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy, Agriculture 
Secretary Dan Glickman, Congressmen Jim McGovern and Tony Hall and 
myself all at one table.
  The answer to your question is that we were working together on a 
bipartisan initiative that could have a positive impact on children 
around the world and be of great benefit to America's farmers.
  Former Senator and now Ambassador McGovern has advocated an idea to 
emulate one of the most beneficial programs ever launched on behalf of 
children in this country--the school lunch program.
  He has worked with Senator Dole and others to establish an 
international school lunch program and President Clinton has jump-
started this proposal with his announcement that the United States will 
provide $300 million in surplus commodities for the initiative.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to provide a long-term funding 
source for international school feeding programs that will allow such 
programs to expand and reach more kids.
  Today there are more than 300 million children throughout the world--
more kids than the entire population of the United States--who go 
through the day and then to bed at night hungry. Some 130 million of 
these kids don't go to school right now, mainly because their parents 
need them to stay at home or work to pitch in any way that they can.
  In January of this year, I traveled to sub-Saharan Africa, the 
epicenter of the AIDS crisis, with more than two-thirds of AIDS cases 
worldwide. There I saw first-hand the horrible impact AIDS is having on 
that continent. I met a woman in Uganda named Mary Nalongo Nassozzi, 
who is a 63-year-old widow.
  All of her children died from AIDS and she has created an 
``orphanage'' with 16 of her grandchildren now living in her home. 
People like Mary need our help to keep these kids in school.
  Linking education and nutrition is not a new idea. Private voluntary 
organizations like CARE, Catholic Relief Services, ADRA, World Vision, 
Save the Children and Food for the Hungry are already helping kids with 
education, mother/child nutrition programs and school feeding programs.

[[Page S7899]]

These organizations and the World Food Program operate programs in more 
than 90 countries at this time, but typically can only target the 
poorest children in the poorest districts of the country.
  Ambassador McGovern, Senator Dole, myself and others have called for 
an expanded effort, and as I noted earlier, President Clinton has 
responded. I applaud the President for the program he announced last 
Sunday in Okinawa. This $300 million initiative is expected to help 
serve a solid, nutritious meal to nine million children every day they 
go to school.
  Think about it: for only 10 cents a day for each meal, we can feed a 
hungry child and help that child learn. With what you or I pay for a 
Big Mac, fries and a soft drink, we could afford to feed two classrooms 
of kids in Ghana or Nepal.


                The Benefits of School Feeding Programs

  While we need to consider the costs of an international school 
feeding program, I think we should also look at the benefits.
  Malnourished children find it difficult to concentrate and make poor 
students. But these school feeding programs not only help 
concentration, they have many benefits, including increased attendance 
rates and more years of school attendance, improved girls' enrollment 
rates, improved academic performance, lower malnutrition rates, greater 
attention spans and later ages for marriage and childbirth.
  These benefits ripple in many directions: higher education levels for 
girls and later marriage for women help slow population growth; greater 
education levels overall help spur economic development; and giving 
needy children a meal at school could also help blunt the terrible 
impact AIDS is having throughout Africa, where there are more than 10 
million AIDS orphans who no longer have parents to feed and care for 
them.


                           domestic benefits

  Some will question our involvement in overseas feeding programs, so 
let me describe what we're doing at home and how we benefit from these 
efforts.
  This year, we're spending more than $20 billion in our food stamp 
program. More than half of this amount goes to kids. We're also 
spending over $9 billion for school child nutrition programs, and more 
than $4 billion for the WIC program. While this sounds like a lot, we 
need to do more. Many people who are eligible for these programs are 
not aware of it and the Department of Agriculture must do a better job 
getting the word out. Still, these figures put the costs of an 
international school feeding effort in perspective: they will be a 
small fraction of what we're spending here at home.

  Through our international efforts, we share some of what we have 
learned with less fortunate countries. But we also benefit.
  An international school lunch program will provide a much-needed 
boost to our beleaguered farm economy, where surpluses and low prices 
have been hurting farmers for the third year in a row. Congress has 
provided more than $20 billion in emergency aid to farmers over the 
last three years. Buying farm products for this proposal would boost 
prices in the marketplace, helping U.S. farmers and needy kids in the 
process. It is a common-sense proposal for helping our farmers, and the 
right thing to do.
  Second, the education of children leads to economic development, 
which in turn increases demand for U.S. products in the future. Some of 
the largest food aid recipients in the 1950s are now our largest 
commercial customers.
  Finally, let's consider the positive foreign policy implications of 
this measure. It helps fulfill the commitments we made in Rome in 1996 
to work to improve world food security and helps satisfy the commitment 
to net food importing developing countries we made in Marrakesh in 1995 
at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. It also supports the goals of 
``Education for All'' made in April in Dakar to achieve universal 
access to primary education.
  It goes beyond demonstrating our commitment to summit texts and 
documents and has a real impact on our national security. When people 
are getting enough to eat, internal instability is less likely. Most of 
the conflicts taking place right now around the world are related at 
least in part to food insecurity.


                  we can't and shouldn't do this alone

  The United States shouldn't go it alone. This needs to be an 
international effort. If the full costs for this program are shared 
fairly among developed countries, as we do now for United Nations 
peacekeeping efforts or humanitarian food aid relief efforts, then our 
resource commitments will be multiplied many times over. I encourage 
the Administration to continue its efforts to gain multilateral support 
for this initiative.
  We should also seek the involvement and commitment of America's 
corporations and philanthropic organizations. Companies can contribute 
books and school supplies, computer equipment, kitchen equipment, 
construction supplies and management expertise.


                          proposed legislation

  The food aid laws we already have in place allow USDA and USAID to 
start up these kinds of programs, but resources are limited.
  The President's initiative is a concrete first step in the effort to 
assure that every kid is going to school, and that every kid going to 
school has a meal.

  However--and this is not to detract in any way from the important 
action he has taken--the President's initiative relies on surplus 
commodities. That is a sensible approach at this time. But we may not 
always have an overabundance. We all hope for and are working for an 
end to the farm crisis, which means the quantity of surplus commodities 
will decline. We need to look at how we will continue to pay for this 
program in the future as it helps more children and as surplus 
commodities dwindle.
  The legislation I am introducing today, the Agricultural Flexibility 
in Export Development and Assistance Act of 2000, addresses the longer-
term funding issue.
  My legislation authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to reallocate 
unspent Export Enhancement Program (EEP) money to school feeding and 
other food aid programs. When EEP was first authorized, one of its main 
purposes was to increase demand for U.S. agricultural commodities--to 
put money in the wallets of farmers by promoting overseas demand for 
our products. Because U.S. commodity prices have come down, it hasn't 
been used to any major extent since 1995. We are sitting on a pot of 
money, authorized but not being spent, while the EU spends over $5 
billion annually on similar programs. My legislation would free up the 
Secretary of Agriculture to devote those funds to school feeding and 
other food aid programs.
  Because I recognize some would like to see a portion of the surplus 
EEP funds to be spent on export development programs, my bill also 
permits a portion of the funds to be spent on export promotion.
  To maintain flexibility while ensuring our food aid goals are 
addressed, the measure would require that a minimum of 75 percent of 
reallocated EEP funding be spent for either PL480 (Title I or Title II) 
or Food for Progress food aid, with at least half of this amount 
devoted to school feeding or child nutrition programs. It would allow 
up to 20 percent of the reallocated funds to be spent on the Market 
Access Program to promote agricultural exports, and a maximum of five 
percent to be spent on the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) 
program.
  To ensure new artificial restraints don't block our intention in this 
legislation, the measure also raises the caps currently in place 
regarding the quantity of food aid permitted under Food for Progress 
and the amount that may be used to pay for the administrative expenses 
associated with the program.
  Both the Coalition for Food Aid and Friends of the World Food Program 
support this measure. Major commodity groups such as the American 
Soybean Association and the National Corn Growers Association also 
support it.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this 
legislation and in support of the broader effort to respond to the 
nutrition needs of 300 million children, 130 million of whom are not 
but could and should be in school. With our help, these statistics can 
change.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Just 
Opportunities in Bidding (JOB) Act which is

[[Page S7900]]

necessary to ensure that companies who seek to do business with our 
government are treated fairly. The JOB Act would prohibit the 
implementation of proposed regulations which would dramatically amend 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
  I have many concerns about these proposed regulations, but I am 
deeply troubled by the discrimination which it will inevitably foster 
when implemented. The regulations will de facto amend many of our 
nation's laws and give government contracting officers, who are not 
trained in the interpretation of these laws, unfettered discretion to 
deny contracts to companies based on any alleged violation of any labor 
and employment, environmental, antitrust, tax, or consumer protection 
laws over the three years immediately preceding the contract. This is a 
dramatic change from the current requirements of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation which requires that violations must be 
substantial to trigger denial of contract eligibility and does not 
extend to unrelated, past violations.
  The proposed regulations would also allow for the denial of contracts 
on the basis of a mere complaint issued by a federal agency, which 
often are based solely upon information provided by outside, interested 
parties. Moreover, the proposal's terminology is vague and extremely 
subjective--placing tremendous and unprecedented discretion in the 
hands of federal contracting officers. That is discretion that they do 
not need nor qualified to exercise. Terms such as ``legal compliance'' 
by bidding parties are well-intentioned, I am sure, however, I view 
this as a trial lawyer's greatest wish come true. What does ``legal 
compliance'' mean? Does it mean that employers must ensure that they 
are 100 percent in compliance with all of the pertinent laws? Can even 
the most prudent employers guarantee that they and their worksites are 
100 percent in compliance with all federal tax, labor, environmental, 
and anti-trust statutes and regulations? That's certainly a question 
which many creative lawyers will undoubtedly rush to answer in 
courthouses across our nation.
  This proposal is in direct contradiction to existing policy which is 
to fulfill governmental needs for goods and services at a fair and 
reasonable price from contractors who are technically qualified and 
able to perform the contract. Our current policy is based upon a good 
balance between our desire to get the best value for our constituents' 
taxdollars while being fair to all qualified companies who want to have 
the opportunity to provide their goods and services to the government. 
The proposed regulations will result in the unjustified exclusion of 
many of these companies from the bidding process and will result in 
less competition, reduced job opportunities for many employees--
especially small businesses--and less value for our constituents' 
taxdollars.
  As elected representatives of our constituents, we cannot condone 
this and as a legislative body we must refuse to allow a continuation 
of this Administration's legislation by regulation. The JOB Act would 
require the GAO to thoroughly examine this issue and report back to 
Congress with its findings. To me, this is a sound and reasonable 
approach rather than a political one. If you agree that the proposed 
regulations--and the millions of American workers, employers, and 
taxpayers that they will profoundly affect--deserve more thorough 
consideration, join me in my effort to enact the JOB Act.
  I ask consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2986

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Just Opportunities in 
     Bidding Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS PROHIBITED PENDING GAO REVIEW.

       (a) Regulations Not To Have Legal Effect.--The proposed 
     regulations referred to in subsection (c) shall not take 
     effect and may not be enforced.
       (b) Limitation on Additional Proposed Regulations.--No 
     proposed or final regulations on the same subject matter as 
     the proposed regulations referred to in subsection (c) may be 
     issued before the date on which the Comptroller General 
     submits to Congress the report required by section 3.
       (c) Covered Regulations.--Subsection (a) applies to the 
     following:
       (1) The proposed regulations that were published in the 
     Federal Register, volume 64, number 131, beginning on page 
     37360, on July 9, 1999.
       (2) The proposed regulations that were published in the 
     Federal Register, volume 65, number 127, beginning on page 
     40830, on June 30, 2000.

     SEC. 3. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE 
                   WITH FEDERAL LAW.

       The Comptroller General shall--
       (1) conduct a general review of the level of compliance by 
     Federal contractors with the Federal laws that--
       (A) are applicable to the contractors; and
       (B) affect--
       (i) the rights and responsibilities of contractors to 
     participate in contracts of the United States; and
       (ii) the administration of such contracts with respect to 
     contractors; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report on the findings resulting 
     from the review.
                                 ______