[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 131 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10669-S10701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
 RELATED AGENCY PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi for 10 
minutes or less on the bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the distinguished 
Senator the time he requested.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
comments of the distinguished Senator from Washington, I might be 
recognized under the normal division of time for about 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it has taken a considerable period of time 
to reach the happy conclusion of the debate over the appropriations 
bill for the Department of Agriculture. None of that delay is due to 
the distinguished chairman or to his ranking member, the Senator from 
Wisconsin, who have worked with extraordinary diligence and I think 
immense success in bringing this bill before us.
  I can't even begin the major portion of my remarks without thanking 
him for his thoughtfulness to the particular concerns of my own State--
first, of course, the field of agricultural research. There is research 
money in this bill for wheat, apples, asparagus, animal diseases, small 
fruit, barley, and potatoes, to name a few. In each and every case, 
that money will help our farmers meet the demands of the market in the 
future--both here in the United States and overseas.
  In addition, without precedent, there is a considerable and most 
indispensable relief for the tree fruit industry in my State and 
others--formerly a highly profitable occupation that has fallen on bad 
times. A bridge is provided in this bill until more successful times in 
the future. The cranberry industry falls into exactly the same 
situation. And, of course, with respect to low farm prices in many 
other commodities nationwide in scope, relief is included in this bill, 
again with the hope that we will soon have better times in the future 
for our agricultural products.
  There are, however, two subject matter areas of this bill that are of 
particular importance. The first has to do with sanctions--the 
unilateral sanctions that the United States has imposed on itself 
barring the export of our agricultural commodities and for that matter 
medicines to a number of

[[Page S10670]]

countries around the world for some form of foreign policy reasons.
  Those sanctions by and large are canceled by this bill, and the 
President is deprived of the power in the future to impose them 
unilaterally without dealing with us in Congress. This may be very 
important in the immediate future with the threat that sanctions will 
be taken against even our good friend Japan with our agricultural 
products by reason of its whaling practices. I disagree vehemently with 
its whaling practices. But I don't think we should deal with them by 
punishing our farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers. 
Personally, I would have preferred the more sweeping language of the 
original Senate bill in this respect. There was vehement opposition to 
some of its provisions in the House of Representatives.
  My colleague from the State of Washington, Congressman Nethercutt, 
worked diligently, and often in opposition to his own party's 
leadership, in crafting this compromise. This compromise, I guess, I 
would describe as being 80 percent of what we need. It includes what I 
think are some unwise provisions related to travel to Cuba. But, in my 
view, we should take this three-quarters, or 80 percent, of what we 
need, and we should begin to restore the opportunity to secure these 
markets to our farmers. And we should take care of the rest of the 
controversy next year.
  Will we immediately begin to see huge sales of our wheat, for 
example, to Iran and to other former major customers? I am not at all 
sure we will. It may take years to repair the damage we have created by 
these unilateral sanctions. But this is a start. This gives our farm 
community, at a time of very low prices, once again the ability to 
compete in the world markets, and not just in some of those markets.

  Finally, and most importantly, are the provisions of this bill 
dealing with the price of prescription drugs. My colleague from Nevada, 
who just concluded his remarks, had a number of points, with which I 
don't entirely agree, but I certainly do agree with him on that one. He 
was one of the cosponsors of the Jeffords-Dorgan proposal on the 
reimportation of drugs.
  Simply stated, we face a situation in which American pharmaceutical 
manufacturers that are benefiting from huge tax subsidies through 
research and development tax cuts, and benefiting from the immense 
research that we do in the National Institutes of Health, nevertheless, 
sell their products outside of the United States in Canada, in Europe, 
and in Latin America for prices half or less the price they charge for 
those drugs in the United States. That is outrageous. It is a form of 
discrimination without any justification whatsoever.
  Six months or so ago, I introduced a bill to directly ban price 
discrimination in prescription drugs in the same way it has been banned 
in almost every other commodity in the United States in interstate 
commerce for some 65 years.
  A Congressman from New York, Congressman Hinchey, made a similar 
proposal in the conference committee. Personally, I would prefer a more 
direct approach.
  Once again, the perfect was the enemy of the good. We have the 
ability not only for individuals to go into Canada or Mexico and buy 
drugs that are manufactured in the United States, but under the same 
circumstances they are manufactured in the United States, and then they 
are reimported to the United States for individuals to use. It is 
something that I think is very important for people who need to use 
drugs and find them far too expensive here; but also for our 
pharmacists to do the same thing to the extent that their wholesale 
prices are the result of discrimination against them and in favor of 
Canadians and Europeans and others.
  Some of those costs will be passed back to the purchasers of 
prescription drugs here in the United States who can't travel to Canada 
or to Mexico or to someplace else to make their own purchases.
  Is this a perfect solution? No. It is not. First, it is indirect 
rather than direct.
  Second, there are opportunities, I am convinced, in the way their 
bill was written, in spite of all of the efforts of its proponents, 
through which the pharmaceutical manufacturers may find loopholes and 
may be able to frustrate the proper desire of Americans to lower drug 
prices.
  If that happens, we will certainly be back next year at the same time 
and at the same place to see to it that a discrimination which is 
entirely unjustifiable is ended. American companies benefiting from 
American society, from American tax credits from American research 
should not discriminate against Americans. We have taken a major step 
forward in this bill to at least reducing and I hope eliminating that 
kind of discrimination.
  I want to express my enthusiastic support for the passage of this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote for the Agriculture 
appropriations conference report. I want to support our farmers. They 
deserve our support. But I will do so with a great deal of reluctance 
because of what the House of Representatives did. They inserted a 
provision which goes directly counter to the views that were expressed 
in rollcall votes of a bipartisan majority of both the House and the 
Senate.
  I probably shouldn't be that surprised that the House of 
Representatives, under the Republican leadership, has, once again, 
abused the legislative process. It has occurred too often. We had very 
strong votes in both the House and the Senate to lift sanctions on the 
sale of food and medicine to Cuba. After we had those votes, the House 
Republican leadership included a provision which prohibits any kind of 
public financing. What they have said is: Sure, you can have these 
sales. But we are going to make sure there is no way to pay for them.
  We go back home and say how generous we are and how we are helping 
our farmers, at the same time chuckling all the way out, saying it will 
never happen.
  That is bad for America's farmers. It is very bad for the Cuban 
people. It is certainly bad foreign policy.
  In fact, they even went so far as to codify the restrictions on 
travel to Cuba. This strikes at the fundamental right of every American 
to travel freely. Some of the same people who jingoistically say we are 
Americans; we can go wherever we want, will say, but not to Cuba.
  Senator Dodd and I introduced legislation to lift this ban. He spoke 
eloquently about this. It is ironic, actually outrageous, that 
Americans can travel to North Korea or Syria or Vietnam but not to 
Cuba. What a hypocritical, self-defeating, and anachronistic policy. 
What a policy so beneath a great, good nation as ours, a nation of a 
quarter billion people, the most powerful, wealthiest nation on Earth. 
How small-minded. How petty. How beneath this great Nation.
  It is a terrible decision, a blatantly partisan decision, a decision 
driven by politics, and one of the many reasons why the elections on 
November 7 are so important. It is time we inject intelligence and 
bipartisanship into our foreign policy. Congress has had its chance, 
but it has fallen short in too many ways to count. The decision on Cuba 
is another example of the failure of the 106th Congress to do what is 
right for America, what is right for America's farmers, what is right 
for the majority of the American people.
  As one who opposes the dictatorial policies of Fidel Castro, I also 
oppose anybody telling me as an American, or my family, or the people 
of my State, that we cannot travel anywhere in the world where we might 
be accepted. It is so beneath a great and good nation. I hope this is 
something we will correct next year. The majority of Senators and House 
Members, Republicans and Democrats, have already voted. A small band of 
the Republican leadership should not be able to thwart that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 15 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I have to come forward once 
again to oppose another of the annual appropriations bills, 
particularly one that is vitally important to our nation's farmers and 
to support social service programs for women and children.

[[Page S10671]]

  However, this bill once again fails to responsibly appropriate 
funding to the highest agricultural and resource management priorities, 
and instead doles out $300 million in pork-barrel spending. This amount 
is close to $70 million more than was included in the Senate-passed 
bill, and the total overall spending for this bill exceeds the Senate 
and House passed bills by close to $2.8 billion.
  Mr. President, there are several problems with this final conference 
agreement.
  First, the inclusion of $300 million in special interest earmarks 
that either have not been properly reviewed or authorized through the 
legislative process. Much of this spending is earmarked for towns, 
universities, research institutes and a myriad of other entities that 
appear only vaguely related, at best, to addressing the dire situation 
of farmers, women and children.
  A number of policy riders are also tacked on, without any 
consideration by either body, that reverse a number of 1996 farm bill 
reforms and violate trade policies.
  Let's first take a look at the ``Top Ten Porkbusters'' in this year's 
agriculture bill:
  No. 10, An add-on of $300,000 is provided to a laboratory in East 
Lansing, Michigan to map and identify genes in chickens;
  No. 9, An amount of $680,000 will be provided to test the 
``competitiveness'' of agricultural products solely from the state of 
Washington;
  No. 8, Despite millions provided for salmon restoration through other 
appropriations bills this year, $645,000 is earmarked for research on 
alternative salmon products in guess where--Alaska; you will find 
Alaska pops up quite frequently in these pork barrel bills.
  No. 7, An add-on of $1.05 million will pay for sunflower research in 
Fargo, North Dakota.
  Sunflower research, obviously, is unable to be carried out in any 
other part of America, so we have to add $1 million to pay for 
sunflower research in Fargo, ND.
  No. 6, $300,000 is earmarked for the Pineapple Growers Association in 
Hawaii, whose three members of the Pineapple Growers Association are 
the impoverished organizations, Dole Food, Del Monte Fresh Produce, and 
Maui Pineapple Company. These impoverished three corporations are badly 
in need of $300,000 of the taxpayers' money so they can deliberate as 
the Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii.
  A whopping $5 million is earmarked for an insect rearing facility in 
Stoneville, MS. That must be an interesting place.
  No. 4, an add-on of $300,000 will pay for manure management systems 
in Florence, SC. I have spent a lot of time in South Carolina. I hope 
this $300,000 will pay for the manure management systems in Florence, 
SC.
  No. 3, a $250,000 earmark is included for potato research in Prosser, 
WA, to develop improved varieties of potatoes. Only in Prosser, WA, do 
we need to do this kind of research.
  No. 2, the popular National Center for Peanut Competitiveness in 
Georgia will receive a healthy endowment of $400,000. That ever popular 
National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, in Georgia, will receive 
this $400,000.
  And No. 1, an earmark of $100,000 is provided for the Trees Forever 
Program in Illinois, the vitally important purpose of which is to 
encourage and provide information on the use of trees. Trees Forever in 
Illinois is to encourage and provide information on the use of trees.
  In my State of Arizona, except in the northern part of my State, we 
don't have a lot of trees, but we certainly have a lot of cactus. 
Perhaps we could have next year an earmark for the ``Cactus Forever 
Program.'' That might be an enjoyable exercise. I urge my pork 
barreling friends to consider, next time they have Trees Forever, 
perhaps ``Cactus Forever.''
  Mr. President, this is just a small sample from the 32-page list of 
earmarks I compiled from this agriculture appropriations conference 
report. Many are recurring earmarks, year after year, for projects that 
appear to be either duplicative or, as GAO had found when reviewing 
agricultural spending, pay for projects not related to basic research 
or high-priority areas, or which already receive substantial private 
sector investments.
  Mr. President, I am sure that many of these objects may be 
meritorious and helpful to the designated communities. What I object to 
is the way these projects have been selectively identified and 
prioritized for earmarks, mostly for purely political interest, rather 
than for the national interest.
  This agriculture appropriations measure is intended to provide 
assistance to farmers, women, children and rural communities with the 
greatest need. Yet, by diverting millions for parochial spending, we 
fail in this responsibility, forcing Congress to once again attach ad-
hoc emergency spending, adding up so far to $23 billion over the past 
three years, for farm relief and other disaster assistance. This time 
around, about $3.6 billion is designated as emergency spending for 
farmers and communities who have suffered critical losses due to severe 
drought and difficult market conditions.
  I realize that many of America's family farms are in crisis, and some 
form of assistance is needed to responsibly address real economic 
hardship faced by many of our nation's farmers and their families. 
However, it is quite interesting to note that among those that the 
budget negotiators consider the most in need are the tobacco, sugar and 
honey industries.
  For example, a last minute provision was added to reverse the limited 
reforms to the federal sugar program. Behind closed doors, powerful 
sugar interests have been able to chip away at the few reforms required 
by them by the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill.
  First, through last year's omnibus appropriations bill, a provision 
was tacked on in conference to remove the responsibility of sugar 
producers to pay small marketing assessments on sugar to help pay down 
the federal debt.
  By the way, a large family of sugar growers is one of the major 
reasons why we are having to pay billions of dollars to clean up the 
Everglades.
  Earlier this year, sugar interests pressured the Agriculture 
Secretary to spend more than $60 million to purchase more than 150,000 
tons of surplus sugar to prevent mass forfeitures, paid for by the 
taxpayers once again. An additional 934,000 short tons of sugar was 
forfeited once again this month, thereby eliminating the responsibility 
for sugar growers to pay back $352 million in loans. Many of these 
sugar growers are capable of making enormous political contributions in 
soft money to both parties.
  And, now, sugar interests have adeptly worked behind the scenes to 
add another never-before-seen provision, not previously included in the 
Senate or House bill, to overturn federal sugar policy. This change 
will reverse the recourse loan provision in the 1996 farm bill that 
obligates full repayment of the loan in cash. Despite loopholes already 
existing in current law to allow sugar producers to sidestep loan 
repayments, this new conference provision directs that all federal 
price support loans be made permanently ``non-recourse'' loans, which 
is a fancy way of saying the loans will not have to be repaid.
  Another provision added in conference allows burley tobacco producers 
to forfeit their crops, much in the same manner that sugar producers 
are allowed to do. Not only are we letting sugar and tobacco growers 
off the hook for repayment of Federal loans, the Federal Government 
will be responsible for selling off tobacco crops that are forfeited to 
the Federal Government. Such a movement may encourage the 
overproduction of tobacco, at a time when, thank God, the tobacco 
demand is lessening and the American people are urging more responsible 
federal policies toward tobacco because of its impacts on our children 
and public health. However, once again, special interests win, and the 
taxpayers will foot the bill, at a cost of $50 million.
  Other egregious last-minute provisions added in conference include:
  A new provision that reinstates the federal subsidy for honey 
producers, previously repealed by the 1996 farm bill. The cost? $20 
million.
  The controversial dairy price support program will be extended, while 
also delaying implementation of the dairy recourse loan program that 
requires full repayment of federal loans.
  $500,000 is earmarked solely for the State of California for crop 
insurance,

[[Page S10672]]

despite the $8 billion crop insurance reform bill passed earlier this 
year.
  $2.5 million is directed to capitalize the South Carolina Grain 
Dealers Guaranty Fund, under the guise of emergency spending; and,
  $7.2 million in emergency funds will pay for sugar transportation 
costs for the State of Hawaii.
  Other provisions are tacked onto this report that clearly do not 
belong in this particular bill and, therefore, could be subject to 
budget points-of-order.
  A provision, which the Wall Street Journal called a ``unique steel-
friendly provision,'' was inserted into this conference report that 
diverts antidumping and countervailing duties from the Treasury to 
affected domestic industries. This provision is an almost one-half 
billion dollar giveaway to U.S. corporations that had not been 
considered previously by the Senate. As our nation begins to pay down 
our $5 trillion debt, we should consider the effect of this provision 
very carefully. Instead, we will not consider it at all. No member, 
except those among the negotiators, will have any say about the effects 
of this policy.
  Another equally troubling provision in this report once again 
concerns legislation that has not been considered by the House or 
Senate. This provision sets up a Hass Avocado Board for avocado 
research and promotion. While on its face, it may not sound 
objectionable, such a provision may unfairly give domestic producers 
more representation than U.S. importers, thereby violating our WTO 
obligations by not granting national treatment to avocado imports and 
acting as an export subsidy.
  In addition, this provision currently forces an assessment of 
avocados at a rate of $.025 per pound. This rate must be paid by 
exporters at the time of entry into the United States. However, U.S. 
domestic producers will not have to pay these taxes until 60 days after 
the last day of the month that the sale is made. In addition, no tax is 
collected on Hass avocados that are exported.
  Again, these two provisions clearly violate our WTO obligations, and 
I believe we should study this issue more before passing it into law. I 
am concerned that this provision will give 85 percent of the fees 
collected from a state back to the state avocado board. This seems like 
unnecessary pork for state avocado boards. However, once again, we will 
not be able to vote up or down on this provision.
  The Congress has certain rules that apply to its budget process. One 
of those rules states that, once a Senate-House conference convenes, 
negotiations are limited to only the funding and provisions that exist 
in either bill. Adding funding that is outside the scope of the 
conference is not in order, nor is the inclusion of legislative 
provisions that were not in the preexisting bills.
  The final agreement clearly violates our established rules over and 
over again. Yet, no one pays attention to these violations because 
Congress appears to favor spending that benefits the special interests 
of a few, rather than spend the taxpayers' dollars responsibly and 
enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all 
Americans.
  It is all taxpayers who have to shoulder the burden to pay for the 
pork-barrel spending in this appropriations conference report and the 
others that will follow, and I will not vote to place that burden on 
American families.
  Mr. President, in conclusion I want to refer to a column by David 
Broder in this morning's Washington Post. The title of it is, ``So 
Long, Surplus.'' That is what I have to say this morning and what I 
have been saying for several weeks now: So long, surplus.
  I notice a lot of the Presidential debate is devoted to what we will 
do with the surplus, whether we cut taxes; whether we pay down the 
debt; whether we save Social Security; whether we save Medicare. It is 
not going to be there. We are spending it at an incredibly huge rate.

       As a result, said Congressional Quarterly, the nonpartisan, 
     private news service, spending for fiscal 2001, which began 
     on Oct. 1, is likely to be $100 billion more than allowed by 
     the supposedly ironclad budget agreement of 1997.
       More important, the accelerated pace of spending is such 
     that the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget-watchdog 
     group, estimates that the $2.2 trillion non-Social Security 
     surplus projected for the next decade is likely to shrink by 
     two-thirds to about $712 billion.

  Let me repeat. The Concord Coalition, which is a bipartisan 
organization, predicts that the surplus is not going to be $2.2 
trillion in the next decade; it is going to be about $712 billion. And 
that is with the rosiest of scenarios.
  What are we doing here? What are we doing here? We are spending the 
surplus; we are earmarking, pork barrel spending; we are calling things 
emergencies that are not. We are frivolously and irresponsibly spending 
this surplus which is so vital to our ability to meet our entitlement 
obligations in this century, obligations to Social Security and to 
Medicare and other entitlement programs.
  I quote from David Broder again, from this morning.

       To grasp what is happening--those now in office grabbing 
     the goodies before those seeking office have a chance--you 
     have to examine the last-minute rush of bills moving through 
     Congress as it tries to wrap up its work and get out of town.

  I ask unanimous consent the article by David Broder of this morning 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 18, 2000]

                            So Long, Surplus

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Between the turbulent world scene and the close 
     presidential contest, few people are paying attention to the 
     final gasps of the 106th Congress--a lucky break for the 
     lawmakers, who are busy spending away the promised budget 
     surplus.
       President Clinton is wielding his veto pen to force the 
     funding of some of his favorite projects, and the response 
     from legislators of both parties is that if he's going to get 
     his, we're damn sure going to get ours.
       As a result, said Congressional Quarterly, the nonpartisan, 
     private news service, spending for fiscal 2001, which began 
     on Oct. 1, is likely to be $100 billion more than allowed by 
     the supposedly ironclad budget agreement of 1997.
       More important, the accelerated pace of spending is such 
     that the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget-watchdog 
     group, estimates that the $2.2 trillion non-social Security 
     surplus projected for the next decade is likely to shrink by 
     two-thirds to about $712 billion.
       As those of you who have been listening to Vice President 
     Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush know, they have all 
     kinds of plans on how to use that theoretical $2.2 trillion 
     to finance better schools, improved health care benefits and 
     generous tax breaks. They haven't acknowledged that, even if 
     good times continue to roll, the money they are counting on 
     may already be gone.
       To grasp what is happening--those now in office grabbing 
     the goodies before those seeking office have a chance--you 
     have to examine the last-minute rush of bills moving through 
     Congress as it tries to wrap up its work and get out of town.
       A few conscientious people are trying to blow the whistle, 
     but they are being overwhelmed by the combination of 
     Clinton's desire to secure his own legacy in his final 100 
     days, the artful lobbying of various interest groups and the 
     skill of individual incumbents in taking what they want.
       Here's one example. The defense bill included a provision 
     allowing military retirees to remain in the Pentagon's own 
     health care program past the age of 65, instead of being 
     transferred to the same Medicare program in which most other 
     older Americans are enrolled. The military program is a great 
     one; it has no deductibles or copayments and it includes a 
     prescription drug benefit.
       Retiring Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, himself a 
     wounded Congressional Medal of Honor winner, wondered why--in 
     the midst of a raging national debate on prescription drugs 
     and Medicare reform--these particular Americans should be 
     given preferential treatment. Especially when the measure 
     will bust the supposed budget ceiling by $60 billion over the 
     next 10 years.
       ``We are going to commit ourselves to dramatic increases in 
     discretionary and mandatory spending without any unifying 
     motivation beyond the desire to satisfy short-term political 
     considerations,'' Kerrey declared on the Senate floor. ``I do 
     not believe most of these considerations are bad or unseemly. 
     Most can be justified. But we need a larger purpose than just 
     trying to get out of town.''
       The Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
     Pete Domenici of New Mexico, joined Kerrey in objecting to 
     the folly of deciding, late in the session, without ``any 
     detailed hearings . . . [on] a little item that over a decade 
     will cost $60 billion.'' Guess how many of the 100 senators 
     heeded these arguments? Nine.
       Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican, may have been right in 
     calling this the worst example of fiscal irresponsibility, 
     but there were many others. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who 
     made his condemnation of pork-barrel projects part of his 
     campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, 
     complained that spending bill after spending bill is being 
     railroaded through Congress by questionable procedures.

[[Page S10673]]

       ``The budget process,'' McCain said, ``can be summed up 
     simply: no debate, no deliberation and very few votes.'' When 
     the transportation money bill came to the Senate, he said, 
     ``the appropriators did not even provide a copy of the 
     [conference] report for others to read and examine before 
     voting on the nearly $60 billion bill. The transportation 
     bill itself was only two pages long, with the barest of 
     detail, with actual text of the report to come later.''
       Hidden in these unexamined measures are dozens of local-
     interest projects that cannot stand the light of day. Among 
     the hundreds of projects uncovered by McCain and others are 
     subsidies for a money-losing waterfront exposition in Alaska, 
     a failing college in New Mexico and a park in West Virginia 
     that has never been authorized by Congress. And going out the 
     window is the ``surplus'' that is supposed to pay for all the 
     promises Gore and Bush are making.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Congress has not always acted this 
way. As a matter of fact, in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, when we still 
had deficits, the Congress spent less money than the actual budget caps 
allowed. But since the era of surpluses began in 1999, the Congress and 
the president have taken this to mean they now have a license to spend 
freely and irresponsibly without any adherence to limits. We have 
gradually spent in excess of the discretionary spending limits.
  But now, for the fiscal year 2001, the spending has exploded to at 
least $33 billion above the spending cap, consuming nearly one-third of 
fiscal year 2001's projected on-budget surplus, and we still have 
several appropriations bills yet to go. Our continuing fiscal 
irresponsibility in threatening to consume a substantial portion of the 
projected on-budget surpluses before they are actually realized--and, 
according to a recently released CBO report, even if we are to save all 
of today's projected surpluses, we still face the possibility of an 
uncertain long-term fiscal future as adverse demographics and 
lengthening lifespans lead to surging entitlement costs.
  CBO projects that the three main entitlement programs--Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will rise from roughly 7.5 percent of 
GDP today to 17 percent by 2040 absent programmatic reforms. The CBO 
also warns that ``Projections of future economic growth and fiscal 
imbalances are quite sensitive to assumptions about what policymakers 
will do with the budget surpluses that are projected to arise over the 
next decade.''
  Therefore, it is imperative that not only do we avoid squandering the 
projected surpluses, but the meaningful reforms of entitlement programs 
be undertaken not to avoid budget deficits and unsustainable levels of 
debt in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, is it correct that I am allotted 45 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before getting into my main comments on 
the Agriculture Appropriations conference report, I want to make a few 
comments in response to the Senator from Arizona, who spoke about 
various items that are in this bill and criticized them.
  I am very proud of my service on the agriculture appropriations 
subcommittee, and I am very proud of our chairman and ranking member 
for the bill they put together. It is a good bill. I am going to vote 
for it because it provides needed funding for a range of programs and 
activities important not only to farm families and rural communities 
but to consumers and our Nation generally.
  I thank our agriculture appropriations chairman, Senator Cochran, and 
the ranking Democratic member, Senator Kohl, for their hard work on 
this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to have worked with them, and I 
thank them for their cooperation in responding to my views on various 
items in this legislation. I commend them for their work in putting 
this bill together. Overall, it is a good bill.
  The Senator from Arizona cited a number of items in the bill. I did 
not hear him mention some research grants for the fruit and vegetable 
market analysis for Arizona. There was a produce pricing item in there 
for Arizona. There was a Federal administration research grant for 
shrimp aquaculture for several States, including Arizona. Also in the 
conference report, there is a $5 million item for Water Conservation 
and Western Cotton Laboratory in Maricopa, AZ.
  I do not know a lot about those facilities. I know our colleague, 
Senator Kyl, is on the committee. I am sure he has looked at these 
items and may have had something to do with them being in there. I do 
not know. But I believe the Senator from Arizona, who just spoke, is 
off the mark because most of the items in this bill are there because 
Senators pay attention to the needs of their constituents and they pay 
attention to the needs of our country.
  I am not cognizant of this Water Conservation and Western Cotton 
Laboratory in Maricopa for $5 million, but it probably has something to 
do with cotton production, which is important to our country. It 
probably has something to do with cotton production in Arizona, which 
is obviously important to the people of Arizona and Western States.
  I don't know. Maybe this has something also to do with the large 
amounts of Federal subsidies that our Government provides for water and 
for irrigation for cotton in Arizona. I listened in vain to hear my 
colleague from Arizona decry the use of subsidized water in his State 
of Arizona. Well, I'm not here today going after it. It is probably 
necessary for the people of Arizona, probably necessary for western 
cotton production, and could be important for western animal 
production.
  So I think my friend from Arizona, in taking after a lot of the items 
in the Agriculture appropriations bill, is just simply off the mark. 
Oh, I know it probably makes good press. You can probably get a good 
column written once in a while about pork barrel spending and all that 
kind of stuff, but when you go down these items, these are items that 
are important to the people of those constituencies in those States, 
important to agriculture in those States and, as such, it is important 
to agriculture for the entire country.
  So that is why I commend the chairman and the ranking member for 
putting this bill together. It is a good bill.
  In fact, if you want to talk about items that are in the bill that 
pertain to States, let me talk about one in my own State. One of my 
highest priorities was to obtain funding for the planning and design of 
new facilities at the Department of Agriculture's National Animal 
Disease Laboratory in Ames, IA. I am pleased that the bill has the full 
$9 million that was requested for this purpose in the President's 
budget.
  These new facilities are absolutely critical for biocontainment and 
work with animals with highly contagious diseases. The National Animal 
Disease Laboratory is one of--of course, in my opinion, it is the 
preeminent animal disease research facility in the United States. But 
the conditions of this facility are very poor. The main facility there 
was constructed beginning in the 1950s. Now we face threats from new 
animal diseases; some that are highly contagious, some that can be used 
by terrorists for bioterrorism. Yet the facilities, some that were 
built some 40 years ago, are not built to contain them adequately, 
safely, and securely. We need to move forward to improve the National 
Animal Disease Laboratory facilities as quickly as possible, to protect 
against emerging, highly contagious, highly infectious animal diseases, 
many of which, if not contained, if let loose in the environment, could 
cause tremendous numbers of illnesses and deaths. So the NADL funding 
is not just about protecting animal life and health; it is also for 
protecting human life and health as well. Sure, this facility is 
located in Iowa--I am very proud of it; it predates my service in 
Congress--but it is a national laboratory. This is another example 
where money has gone to a State, but it has gone for a national 
purpose. It is just like any of the other national laboratories that we 
have. This is the preeminent one for animal disease.

[[Page S10674]]

  I also want to point out some other priority items of particular 
interest in Iowa that are in the bill. They are particular to Iowa, but 
they are broader than the State, including funding for research that 
will help block the use of anhydrous ammonia to make methamphetamine. 
That is one that is in this bill. It helps us in Iowa, but it helps us 
in many other States.
  There is an item in the bill for addressing serious erosion problems 
in Iowa's Loess Hills. The Loess Hills in Iowa make up the only 
geologic formation of its kind anywhere in the world outside the nation 
of China. These are a national treasure. There is some money in here to 
address some of the serious erosion problems in this very unique 
geologic formation.
  There is money in here for research into industrial lubricants made 
from soybeans and other commodities, for farm safety education, and for 
dairy research and education.
  I see my friend from Minnesota is here. I just joined him in 
Minnesota yesterday. We traveled around the State. I was reading an 
article--I think it happened in Minnesota, but if it didn't happen in 
Minnesota, it happened in Iowa--where a little 3-year-old boy got one 
arm and his other hand caught in a farm auger. I was reading the tragic 
story of how the doctors tried to reattach his arm and were 
unsuccessful in doing so. So this young 3-year-old boy has lost his 
right arm and, I believe, his left hand because of an accident on a 
farm.
  Do we need funds for better research and education so that farmers 
and their families can be more safe in their occupations? You bet we 
do. And that is very worthwhile funding.
  This bill also includes major increases in funding for food safety 
activities at USDA and FDA. This has been a priority of mine for a 
number of years. For USDA, food safety funding will increase by $28.3 
million; and for FDA, the funding will increase by $30 million. That 
means that for USDA and FDA we are fully funding the President's food 
safety initiative. That is good, but there is a lot more we have to do 
in the way of food safety.
  Last month, we had a hearing in the Agriculture Committee on food 
safety. Chairman Lugar and I worked together to help set it up. In that 
hearing we gathered some very telling information about the resources 
that we are putting into food safety. The General Accounting Office 
testified that in fiscal year 1999, about $1 billion was spent on USDA 
and FDA food safety activities combined. Of that amount, USDA received 
$712 million to inspect some 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg 
establishments.
  FDA, however, received only $260 million with which it had to inspect 
over 57,000 food establishments and 9,000 animal drug and feed 
establishments. So USDA gets $712 million. They have 6,000 
establishments to inspect. FDA got only $260 million. They had to 
inspect over 66,000 establishments.
  Here is the twist. About 85 percent of the instances of foodborne 
illness are linked to foods that fall under FDA's jurisdiction, and 
only 15 percent of them fall under USDA's jurisdiction. So clearly, we 
have our work cut out for us in the area of food safety.
  We need more resources for the Food and Drug Administration. But, in 
reality, we really need a more unified and coordinated structure for 
federal food safety. Next year, this Congress should work to that end. 
I know my colleague, Senator Durbin from Illinois, has a bill on that. 
Obviously, all the bills will die at the end of this session of this 
Congress, but we need to join forces in a bipartisan fashion next year. 
I believe there will be broad support among food producers and 
consumers to have a unified coordinated structure for food safety here 
at the Federal level.
  I was also pleased to be able to work with Congressman Walsh of New 
York to include in this conference report important hunger relief 
measures. The provisions in this bill will significantly help in making 
sure Americans who have high rent and utility costs, or who just happen 
to have a modest, reliable automobile, can still receive food stamp 
benefits they need to feed their families. The vehicle provision is 
especially important in rural areas where people need to have a decent 
car to get to town or to get to work. They should not be disqualified 
from food stamps just because they own a modest, dependable vehicle.
  I am also pleased that there were significant increases in rural 
housing, sewer, and water assistance, and economic development support 
important for rural America. I am, however, concerned about an increase 
in the fee for rural housing. For the rural housing loan assistance 
program, the fee was increased from 1 percent to 2 percent. That was 
included in the final measure. I believe this hurts the ability of 
modest-income families to become homeowners in rural areas. I will be 
working to reverse that.
  This legislation also includes a substantial amount of additional 
emergency spending to respond to the needs arising from various types 
of economic and natural disaster losses. Overall, there is 
approximately $3.6 billion in emergency assistance, including 
compensation for crop production and crop quality losses, livestock and 
dairy assistance, and funding for the important emergency conservation 
and emergency watershed programs. This emergency assistance will be 
very important to farmers who have suffered from drought and severe 
weather in Iowa and many other States.
  Over the past several years, Congress has provided a good deal of 
emergency assistance to farmers. In the past 3 years, the emergency 
assistance has amounted to over $22 billion. As I said, in this bill 
there is an additional $3.6 billion. For the most part, that assistance 
was clearly needed--in fact, critically needed. It helped keep many 
farm families on the land who otherwise would have been forced out of 
business. Keep in mind, these emergency payments were on top of the 
spending under provisions of the existing farm bill.
  For fiscal year 2000, USDA made some $28 billion in direct payments 
of one kind or another to U.S. farmers. That is a record. And the 
overall cost of farm programs was $32.3 billion, another record. 
Looking at it another way, in calendar year 2000, U.S. farmers will 
receive $23.3 billion in direct payments from the Federal Government, 
but they will have a net farm income of only $45.6 billion. Over 50 
percent--over half--of U.S. net farm income this year will come from 
direct Government payments. In fact, last year in Iowa, USDA payments 
exceeded our net farm income.
  I can't help but ask, whatever happened to the promises made by the 
backers of the so-called Freedom to Farm bill? They were going to ``get 
the Government out of agriculture and let the free market work.'' What 
do we have? Commodity prices have crashed. Farm program spending by the 
Government is at record levels, and farmers are still being driven off 
the land by the thousands. Get the Government out? Farmers today are 
every bit, if not more, reliant on the Government than they have ever 
been before. Freedom to Farm did not get the Government out of 
agriculture, but it sure has been successful in getting family farmers 
out of agriculture.
  Today our farmers plant for the Government program. They market for 
the Government program. They rely on the Government program for over 
half their net farm income. Already, Freedom to Farm has cost $29 
billion more than its backers promised when it was passed in 1996. The 
emergency assistance we have passed went to help a lot of farmers. But 
it is a serious indictment of the current Freedom to Farm bill that 
Congress has had to provide emergency farm income assistance 4 years in 
a row. And the way things are going, we are going to have to add more 
in this fiscal year beyond what is in this bill.

  We cannot any longer tolerate a farm policy that lurches from one 
emergency spending measure to the next. It is time for Congress to 
recognize that Freedom to Farm has become ``freedom to fail.'' It has 
failed. We need to write a new farm bill, one that maintains the 
planning flexibility and the environmental programs we all support--but 
that restores the income protection, the farm safety net, the 
countercyclical programs that farmers need.
  I listened to the debate last night. What I heard was Vice President 
Gore say we need to change our farm program, we need a better safety 
net, we need better conservation programs that are voluntary, that we 
can put

[[Page S10675]]

more money into conservation, but to provide a better income protection 
and a countercyclical program for farmers. To the best of my knowledge 
and information, Governor Bush has said he wants to stick with Freedom 
to Farm.
  I think those who live in rural America and on our farms should know 
that, should know the data, the facts I have just laid out. Farm 
program spending is at an all-time high, yet thousands of farmer are 
still going out of business. We need a new direction and a new farm 
bill. We need it soon.
  Here is another aspect of the failure of the Freedom to Farm bill. 
Because farmers are so heavily reliant on direct payments, Congress has 
stepped in this year and last year to raise the payment limitation for 
loan deficiency payments, what are known as LDPs, and marketing loan 
gains. We have raised the payment limitation for loan deficiency 
payments and marketing loan gains to $150,000 instead of $75,000 which 
was in the farm bill. It was done last year, and it is done again this 
year in this bill.
  But there is a wrinkle that deserves more attention. If an individual 
sets up partnerships or corporations, that individual can actually 
double the effective payment limitation. That means that, in reality, 
the payment limitation for the largest farms is now $300,000 for an 
individual.
  I have to ask: How can we justify paying out such large amounts of 
money to the largest farms while family farms are struggling to survive 
and going out of business? We are told that this payment limitation 
relief was absolutely necessary, even to help family-size farms. But in 
reality, only a very small share of farms actually receive any benefit 
from this increase in the payment limit.
  The Environmental Working Group analyzed the USDA data and determined 
that fewer than five-tenths of 1 percent of farms and farm businesses 
that are receiving USDA payments actually benefited from the payment 
limitation increase Congress approved in 1999. These 3,400 individuals 
and farm businesses received an average of $148,000 under this program 
last year, 14 times higher than the $7,200 received by the average 
farmer.
  We have similar numbers from the Office of the Chief Economist at 
USDA. Based on data collected in the 1997 census of agriculture, they 
found that the number of farmers who might benefit for that year with 
the change included in this conference report is about 13,000, which is 
perhaps about 1.5 percent of the total participants in the Federal 
commodity programs.
  So again, this doubling of farm payment limitations went to help just 
a very small percentage of farms of the largest size. It seems to me, 
if we are going to provide these amounts of money, we should put it in 
to help the family size farms that are struggling, the kind of farms 
Senator Wellstone and I visited yesterday in southern Minnesota. These 
are not huge farms, these are family farms, yet they are the ones being 
squeezed. The big ones that are perhaps farming thousands of acres of 
land are getting huge payments of up to $300,000. That doesn't make 
sense. These large farms can protect themselves, take care of 
themselves. If we are going to put the money in for farmers, let's help 
the struggling family farms first.
  I also want to talk about the Cuba provisions. I believe what is in 
this conference report on Cuba was really a step backward. There is a 
superficial sham opening of the embargo on agricultural shipments to 
Cuba from the United States, but the restrictions are so great that I 
do not believe it will amount to anything. Keep in mind that no direct 
financing can be provided by any U.S. financial institution to anyone 
who wants to sell products to Cuba. Well, financing is a critical part 
of agricultural exports. Anyone knows that. Yet no direct financing can 
be provided. You have to go to some third country to get it. Also, the 
bill locks into statute the travel restrictions that have been in place 
regarding Cuba, which are administrative. This locks them into law. It 
will make it just that much harder to bring down the barriers to change 
in Cuba.
  We have had a failed policy on Cuba for 40 years now--a failed 
policy. This bill keeps us on the same path. Actually, what we are 
doing in this bill is the best thing we could ever do to keep Fidel 
Castro in power. If you want to change things in Cuba, open it up and 
let people travel there. Open it up for exports. Let our farmers travel 
there and sell our goods and products in Cuba without the restrictions 
this bill writes into law. That would be the single best thing we could 
do. But, no, we are doing the same thing we have done for 40 years. 
Someone once described insanity as doing the same thing over and over 
again and expecting a different result. We keep doing the same thing 
year after year after year with Cuba, and we expect some different 
results. It is time we change our Cuba policy.
  Lastly, I want to talk about the issue of drug reimportation. There 
was a provision in this bill that would have allowed pharmacists and 
wholesalers to reimport prescription drugs.
  The cost of prescription drugs is a critical issue. I have had 
meetings with seniors across Iowa to talk about the rising prices of 
medicines and their prescription drugs. First of all, I must add that 
the most urgent and important thing I believe we can do here is to 
enact a meaningful Medicare drug benefit for all seniors. We have it 
pending, but the Republican leadership will not bring it up and let us 
vote on it. I think it is a disgrace that we have not acted on this 
issue before leaving this year.
  The drug reimportation amendment, offered by Senators Dorgan and 
Jeffords, which would allow pharmacies and wholesalers to import FDA-
approved prescription drugs, was well intentioned and began as a 
creative way to try to get lower cost drugs to seniors with important 
safety precautions. If done correctly, this proposal would have been a 
real help to seniors, many of whom already travel to Canada and Mexico 
to buy medications at a fraction of their U.S. price. But not every 
senior in Iowa or in other States is able to travel to Canada or to 
Mexico to get those drugs.
  Unfortunately, the provision in the bill now is the product of a 
closed-door discussion. We were kept out. At the last minute, we got 
some paper handed to us and we voted on it. I believe the authors have 
rendered it unworkable with language that will prevent any importation 
of affordable FDA-approved drugs.
  In spite of months of bipartisan work to craft this language, the 
Republican leadership decided abruptly to take a partisan approach that 
is riddled with loopholes to minimize the impact of the new system. In 
fact, I think it may be completely unworkable.
  The language includes a provision that reads as follows:

       The provisions of this section only become effective if the 
     Secretary demonstrates to the Congress that the 
     implementation of this section will: (1) pose no additional 
     risk to the public health and safety; and (2) result in a 
     significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the 
     American consumers.

  What does all that language mean? I asked in the conference: What 
does this mean? How is this to be done? I could get no answer. 
Unfortunately, the way the language was finally crafted, it may not be 
possible to ``demonstrate'' that the public will be adequately 
protected or to ``demonstrate'' that prices will be substantially 
reduced.
  The language has other weaknesses in labeling and marketing that I 
believe undermine its ability both to protect the public from unsafe 
drugs and to lower costs.
  In addition, the language crafted by the Republican leadership 
requires the program to be terminated after 5 years. This is going to 
have a chilling effect on any private investment necessary to set up 
the distribution systems and the lab testing facilities necessary to 
carry out the program and to make sure they are safe.
  In short, the drug reimportation system in this bill is a charade. I 
hope the American public will see right through this and recognize it 
for what it is: a figleaf for the Republican leadership, desperate to 
disguise the fact that they have done nothing this year to enact a 
meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit, which really is the only 
way we can effectively provide access to affordable prescription drugs 
for our senior citizens.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield whatever time he needs of that remaining to the 
Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page S10676]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I will only take 5 minutes if 
that is all right with him.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time is the Senator going to use?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would rather the Senator keep some time, so 5 
minutes will be fine.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have a couple of other things I need to say.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this 
agriculture appropriations bill. While it is clear there are some 
significant shortfalls with regard to the prescription drug re-
importation issue, which I will speak about later, on balance this 
legislation will provide much needed help to family farmers, rural 
communities, and low income families.
  I am pleased this legislation includes substantial emergency 
assistance, $3.6 billion, directed to family farmers in Minnesota, and 
across the nation, who are suffering from natural disasters, 
historically low prices and increasingly concentrated markets which 
have largely been brought on by the failed 1996 Freedom to Farm Bill, 
or as I call it the Freedom to Fail Act.
  Specifically this legislation will provide $1.6 billion to producers 
who have been devastated by lost crops due to natural or weather 
related disasters. In my state of Minnesota, 7 to 10 inches of rain 
fell in early June in the Red River Valley, which destroyed what 
promised to be a bumper crop, and has forced hundreds of family farmers 
to clean up flood damages for the eighth consecutive year. The 
Minnesota Farm Service agency tell us that almost 400,000 acres of 
crops have been destroyed in Minnesota. While crop insurance will cover 
some of the losses, this additional emergency assistance will be 
necessary for many family farmers in the region.
  This part of Minnesota, largely dependent on a poor farm economy, has 
been devastated by successive years of floods that have forced many off 
the farm. And this rain storm affected other areas of my state 
including localized portions of Southeast Minnesota. Overall twelve 
counties in Minnesota have been affected by major disasters and 
experienced major crop losses.
  It is vitally important that this disaster aid get out to producers 
quickly. However, it is also vitally important that we take some action 
to deal with the root problems in agriculture policy.
  As many of my colleagues know, the 1996 farm bill has proven to be a 
total failure. By destroying any safety net for family farmers and 
capping loan rates at artificially low levels, the 1996 bill has left 
farmers vulnerable to the sever economic and weather related events of 
the past three years, resulting in devastating income losses. And while 
the premise of the Freedom to Farm bill was to ``get the government out 
of agriculture'' the Federal government has been forced to spend more 
on disaster packages--over $25 billion--over the last four years than 
was supposed to be spend through the seven year life of the law.
  Again this year, Congress has failed to address the impact of 
plummeting farm incomes and the ripple effect it is having throughout 
rural communities and their economic base. I can assure my colleagues 
that if we do not write a new farm bill early next year, if the only 
help family farmers get from Washington is unreliable, long delayed 
emergency aid bills that are distributed unfairly, family farmers are 
not going to survive.
  Family farmers deserve a targeted, counter-cyclical loan rate that 
provides a meaningful level of income support when the market price 
falls below the loan rate. Lifting the loan rate would provide relief 
to farmers who need it and increase stability over the long term. We 
also need to institute farmer-owned reserve systems to give farmers the 
leverage they need in the marketplace, and conservation incentives to 
reward farmers who carry out conservation measures on their land. We 
need a new farm bill.
  In addition to the failed farm bill, I have found that family farmers 
rank the lack of competitive markets as a major factor to explain the 
price crisis that is devastating rural America. While there can be no 
argument that the majority in Congress has failed to pass, or even 
consider, legislation, such a I and others have proposed, to deal with 
the rash of agribusiness mega-mergers, this appropriations bill has 
taken some positive steps.
  Included in this legislation is an increase in the Grain Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyard Administration's, GIPSA, budget to fund essential 
programs that ensure competitive markets and fair prices for our 
independent livestock producers. I am pleased to say that this 
increase, which I had proposed during Senate consideration of the 
Agriculture appropriations bill, will result in an increase of $4.151 
million over the Senate approved bill.
  As many of my colleagues know, this is essential funding that will 
help bolster GIPSA's market concentration activities. For several 
years, livestock producers have expressed their concern over evermore 
concentrated markets, as well as extreme frustration over what they 
perceive as inadequate governmental action to ensure fair and 
competitive markets. Consequently, GIPSA has been asked to assume a 
more prominent role in ensuring competitiveness and fairness in the 
livestock industry. GIPSA is conducting a growing number of 
investigations on market concentration in agriculture, within shorter 
time frames, using increasingly sophisticated economic and legal 
analysis.
  Examples of what this money will be used for include: anti-
competitive behavior investigations; rapid response teams that are 
utilized for time sensitive issues that require expeditious 
investigations to protect small family producers; and a contract 
library that will be used to catalogue each type of contract offered by 
packers to producers.
  This appropriations bill also contains vital emergency assistance for 
small independent dairy producers. H.R. 4461 will provide $473 million 
in direct income relief payments to family dairy farmers throughout the 
nation. The money is targeted to small- and medium-scale farms who are 
in the midst of a price crisis as a result of the wild price 
fluctuations we have been seeing for the past few years.
  Mr. President, in my state of Minnesota, dairy production is truly 
one of the cornerstones of our economy. We have 8,700 dairy farms in 
Minnesota, ranking us fifth in the nation in dairy production. The 
average herd size of a Minnesota dairy farm is about 60 cows. Family 
agriculture is not just an important element of our states heritage, it 
is vital to our future. But right now, dairy farmers in Minnesota and 
throughout the country need relief. Therefore, I am pleased this 
legislation includes a provision, which I joined the Senators from 
Wisconsin in proposing, to provide $473 million in targeted emergency 
payments to dairy farmers nationwide.
  I continue to see the urgency of this is aid, especially as we in 
Minnesota lose dairy farms at a rate of three per day. This will put 
money in the pockets of dairy farmers soon, when they need it, not a 
year from now when many of them will have already sold their cows. 
However, it is, like last year's funding, merely a bandage to stop the 
bleeding. Dairy farmers everywhere need meaningful policy reform. In 
order to achieve a fair, sustainable and stable long term price, we 
need a dairy price support program that is set at a level sufficient to 
curb the current market volatility.
  In addition, H.R. 4461 contains significant increases in rural 
development programs to help rural communities make it through these 
difficult economic times. Furthermore, I am pleased the bill contains a 
provision I added to provide $3 million in grants to promote employment 
of rural residents through teleworking. Telework is a new method of 
doing work that will allow information technology jobs to be a part of 
diverse, sustainable rural economies while helping IT employers find 
skilled workers. Specifically, telework is the use of 
telecommunications technology, like the Internet, to perform work 
functions over a distance instead of at the traditional workplace of 
the employer. This provision will allow rural communities to access 
federal resources to implement locally designed proposals to use 
telework as a tool for rural development. This represents a critical 
opportunity for diversification and revitalization of rural economies.
  This bill also takes some important first steps to ensure that all 
low-income families receive the food stamps they need to prevent hunger 
and ensure

[[Page S10677]]

adequate nutrition. The bill incorporates an amendment I offered to 
require a study in the next 180 days so we can learn what obstacles 
families face when they try to get food stamps, as well as why the 
rolls have declines so dramatically in recent years. There is a growing 
sense that the Food Stamp Program is not functioning adequately in 
assisting working poor families and helping to ``make work pay.'' 
Although eligibility for food stamps is no longer tied to welfare 
receipt, the dramatic declines in the cash assistance rolls appear to 
have resulted in large numbers of eligible low-income families failing 
to receive the food stamp assistance for which they qualify, including 
many families who have moved from welfare to work. This study will help 
us understand the kinds of policy and program implementation decisions 
we need to make in order to better ensure that working poor families in 
this country are not going hungry.

  The bill also includes two provisions from the Hunger Relief Act--one 
which will raise the vehicle allowance, and one which will raise the 
shelter cap deduction, for families receiving food stamps. This 
provision means that working parents who are dependent on a car to get 
to and from work will still be able to get the food stamps that they 
need, and parents who spend more than 50 percent of their income on 
rent because they live in communities that lack available affordable 
housing will also now be better able to get the food stamps that 
provide critical nutritional supports for themselves and their 
children. This is a very important first step, and I now hope that we 
will see the remaining provisions in the Hunger Relief Act enacted 
before the end of this session. In particular, it is critical that we 
restore food stamp benefits to post-96 legal immigrants as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. President, now let me turn to the prescription drug import 
provision which is included in this conference report. This is 
legislation designed to correct the injustice that finds American 
consumers the least likely of any in the industrialized world to be 
able to afford drugs manufactured by the American pharmaceutical 
industry because of the unconscionable prices the industry charges only 
here in the United States.
  Mr. President, I meet with many constituents, but none with more 
compelling stories than senior citizens struggling to make ends meet 
because of the high cost of prescription drugs--life-saving drugs that 
are not covered under the Medicare program. Indeed, it is shameful that 
this Congress has failed to enact a prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare available to all beneficiaries.
  But the issue is not just Medicare's lack of coverage. The unfairness 
which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated by the high cost of prescription 
drugs here in the United States--the same drugs that can be purchased 
for frequently half the price in Canada or Mexico or Europe. These are 
the exact same drugs, manufactured in the exact same facilities with 
the exact same safety precautions. Minnesotans know this because they 
can drive to Canada and see the price differentials for themselves.
  Driving to Canada every few months to buy prescription drugs at 
affordable prices isn't the solution, nor is it an option for most 
Americans.
  That is why I introduced with Senator Dorgan the International 
Prescription Drug Parity Act, and with Senator Jeffords the Medicine 
Equity and Drug Safety Act, two bills designed to amend the Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act to allow American pharmacists and distributors to 
import prescription drugs into the United States as long as the drugs 
meet the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) strict safety standards. 
Under these proposals, pharmacists and distributors would be able to 
purchase these drugs--often manufactured right here in the U.S.--at 
lower prices overseas and then pass the huge savings along to American 
consumers.
  This legislation has evolved quite a bit through the legislative 
process. Early in that process there had been two constants: 
bipartisanship in seeking lower prices for American consumers and 
opposition every step of the way by a pharmaceutical industry bent on 
preserving profits.
  We were on the verge of producing a strong bipartisan final result 
until the process was hijacked by the Republican leadership. Rather 
than a bipartisan bill that would guarantee Americans the opportunity 
to share in lower drug prices which are available everywhere else in 
the world, Republicans fell in line with the pharmaceutical industry 
and shut the door on closing loopholes which would protect the rights 
of American consumers to affordable, safe prescription drugs.
  Following after their leadership, Republican members of the 
Agriculture appropriations conference committee ditched the bipartisan 
process, jettisoned legislative language that would have assured 
American consumers access to affordable drugs, and left open for the 
pharmaceutical industry loopholes that could defeat the purpose of this 
legislation.

  What language was unilaterally rejected by the Republicans? First, 
was a provision that would have required manufacturers to provide 
access to their FDA-approved U.S. labels. Currently, when drugs are 
reimported to the United States by drug companies, they must be 
relabeled with the FDA approved label. This new provision would have 
assured other importers access to those required labels. Without that 
requirement, manufacturers could stonewall importation by not providing 
the labels. Second, was a provision that prevents manufacturers from 
entering into agreements with their foreign distributors that interfere 
with the resale of prescription drugs back into the United States.
  Either of these loopholes could prevent the reimportation of 
prescription drugs, which is why they should never have been allowed to 
remain in the final bill. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is 
given broad authority to draft regulations to facilitate importation of 
FDA-approved prescription drugs, which gives me some hope. But the 
Secretary's authority does not lessen my outrage or that of my 
Democratic colleagues about the process which resulted in those major 
loopholes going unaddressed. It is unfortunate that the productive 
bipartisanship which had prevailed during the past year to pass this 
bill was discarded in the last, critical hours.
  This needn't have happened. There was an effort when the conference 
met to close the loopholes, ensuring that the pharmaceutical industry 
could not make en end run around the effective implementation of this 
bill. But, given the choice of standing with American consumers, 
especially America's senior citizens, or the most profitable industry 
in America, Republicans chose the industry that has sought to undermine 
this bill from the start.
  While I am saddened about the missed opportunity to produce a 
stronger, water-tight legislative product, I do believe the present 
bill is an improvement over the status quo, and continues to have the 
potential for lowering prescription drug prices here in the United 
States. If however, the pharmaceutical industry takes advantage of the 
Republican-tolerated loopholes, then I will be back next year with 
legislation to close those loopholes and make this law work.
  Mr. President, again, I intend to support this agriculture 
appropriations bill. I thank my colleagues on the floor, Senator 
Cochran, Senator Kohl, Senator Harkin, and others for their very good 
work.
  I speak as a Senator from an agricultural State. I want mention the 
emergency assistance. It is much appreciated. We have gone through some 
difficult times. We have had flooding and we have had scab disease, and 
that on top of record-low prices and record-low farm income, which has 
led to a lot of economic pain. I thank my colleagues for their very 
good work.
  Second of all, let me especially thank Senator Kohl and Senator 
Harkin for their work. I had an amendment on the floor to get some 
additional money for GIPSA. They helped me in conference committee. I 
thank Senator Cochran as well. I really want GIPSA to be about the work 
of looking at the problem of concentration of power. So many of our 
livestock producers are not getting a fair shake. The IBPs and ConAgras 
of this world are muscling their way to the dinner table and muscling 
family farmers off the farm. I think it is important that GIPSA be able 
to look at this whole problem of an increasing concentration of 
economic and, I argue as well, political power.

[[Page S10678]]

  Third of all, let me thank Senator Kohl, in particular, for his fine 
work on some direct income relief payments for dairy farmers. I think 
we have about 473 million nationwide. We have 8,700 dairy farmers in 
the State of Minnesota. Again, record-low prices have been a nightmare 
for these farmers. I thank Senator Kohl for his good work. I am proud 
to be a part of this.
  There is also in this bill a provision that I think is historically 
significant. It only starts out with $3 million, and this is going to 
be done within USDA, obviously. This is going to be a telework program 
where we will try to set up some models, centers of distance learning, 
whereby farmers and other rural people with strong ethics and who want 
to work are going to be able to get training and be connected with 
information technology companies and find employment at good wages but 
do it out of farm, out of home, or satellite office--do the telework.
  I think this is one of the most important things we have in this 
bill. I am very excited about it. Many people in Minnesota who 
transcend all political boundaries helped on this.
  Let me also thank in particular Senator Harkin. He fought it out in 
conference committee, getting us back to the Food and Nutrition 
Service--going out there and after 180 days in the field came back with 
a report telling us why there has been such a steep decline in food 
stamp participation. The Food Stamp Program is a major safety net 
program to make sure children do not go hungry. We want to know why 
there has been such a severe decline in participation. I wish there had 
been a 30-percent decline in poverty in this country. There has been no 
such decline. There has been a dramatic rise in food shelters and 
pantries. We know a lot of people are not getting the help they need.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting this issue. I thank Senator 
Kennedy for his fine work on the Hunger Relief Act.
  Senator Cochran has a longstanding commitment to these issues as 
well.
  I think it is important that we do some revisions when it comes to 
shelters, as well as dependency on car and transportation in allowing 
more people to be eligible for food stamp assistance.
  Finally, on the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, I don't 
know that I am in complete agreement with Senator Harkin, but I know 
what he is saying.
  I did this amendment with Senator Jeffords and Senator Dorgan, 
originally. I think when it went to the conference committee there was 
some effort to make sure we would tighten it up. In particular, I think 
there is a concern that the pharmaceutical companies will make it 
difficult, for example, for the Canadians to be involved in a 
reimportation of those drugs back to this country. I think we could 
have done better on the language. I think there are too many loopholes.
  I am disappointed the way this conference was done. I think this is a 
step forward. But I would like to have seen much more.
  I certainly think you have to have prescription drug benefits added 
onto Medicare if you are going to really provide the help people need. 
I think we should have done more.
  I thank Senator Jeffords for the work he has done on this amendment. 
I was proud to be a part of it.
  We have to write a new farm bill. We have to focus on getting farmers 
a decent price in the marketplace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota. We 
always run out of time around here when we get into a good debate.


                     The Bonnie Campbell Nomination

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I have done repeatedly every day we 
have been here for the past few weeks, I want to talk about the stalled 
nomination of Bonnie Campbell for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I understand the Judiciary Committee of the Senate has again 
scheduled an executive meeting for tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.--I 
guess to talk about subpoenas for the Department of Energy, and 
something else.
  I had my staff do an inquiry, and I found out that Bonnie Campbell's 
name is not on the agenda.
  We are in session. We are in session tomorrow. We are going to be in 
Friday. We are going to be here next week, yet the Judiciary Committee 
again refuses to allow Bonnie Campbell's name to come out for a vote. 
It is bottled up.
  All we want is a vote.
  Bonnie Campbell has strong bipartisan support. Both Senators from 
Iowa support her. Senator Grassley, a Republican; I, a Democrat.
  She has great support from law enforcement and service groups. We 
just had a big debate and an overwhelming vote last week to reauthorize 
the Violence Against Women Act. Senator after senator got up to speak 
about how great it was. It has been a good law. It has done a lot of 
good. The one person who has been primarily responsible for the 
implementation of that act since its inception has been the head of the 
Office of Violence Against Women in the Justice Department. Who has 
that been? Bonnie Campbell. She has done a great job. She is the former 
attorney general of the State of Iowa, now standing in glory in her own 
right. Yet her nomination is bottled up in the Judiciary Committee.
  I ask again: Why is she being bottled up?
  Look. In 1992, when we had a Republican President and a Democratic 
Senate, we had 14 nominations for circuit court judges in 1992 during 
an election year. Nine of them had hearings. Nine of them were 
referred, and nine were confirmed, including one in October right 
before the election. Yet we are told no; Bonnie Campbell's nomination 
came too late. It is too late when we have a Democratic President and a 
Republican Senate. But it wasn't too late when we had a Republican 
President and a Democratic Senate.
  Nine hearings; nine referred; nine confirmed in 1992. Here we are in 
the year 2000: Seven nominated; two had hearings; one referred; and one 
confirmed.
  Who is the one who had the hearing that has not been referred? Bonnie 
Campbell. What a disgrace. What a shame. What a slap in the face to an 
outstanding individual who has done well in the field of law. I haven't 
heard anyone--Republican or Democrat--say that she hasn't performed 
superbly in running the Office of Violence Against Women. Her 
performance is reflected in the House's 415 to 3 vote to reauthorize 
the act and the Senate's 95 to 0 vote on that legislation.
  I will, as I do every day, ask unanimous consent to discharge the 
Judiciary Committee on further consideration of the nomination of 
Bonnie Campbell, the nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court, that her 
nomination be considered by the Senate immediately following the 
conclusion of action on the pending matter, that the debate on the 
nomination be limited to 2 hours equally divided, and that a vote on 
her nomination occur immediately following the use or yielding back of 
that time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I knew it would be objected to. But I am 
going to do it every day to make the point that her name is unfairly 
being bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. No one has said she is 
unqualified, or anything such as that.
  I can only assume it's that the Republicans figure maybe their 
nominee will win the Presidency, and all of these will fall by the 
wayside, and, rather than Bonnie Campbell, we will have somebody else. 
Maybe that is the way they feel. But that is not the way to run this 
place.
  Once you go far down that road, it may be pretty hard to turn back. 
Times change. There will be a time when there will be a Republican in 
the White House and the Senate will be Democratic. Do we want to repeat 
the same thing this year? Do we want to go down that road? Is that what 
this place has become? If you start it on that side, that is what is 
going to happen, because when the Democrats take charge, they'll look 
back at what happened in the year 2000. We shouldn't go down that road.


                     alternative dispute resolution

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the fiscal year 
2001 Agriculture Appropriations conference report (H.R. 4461). Included 
in this bill is funding which will, among other things, assist our 
Nation's farmers, aid

[[Page S10679]]

rural development, preserve delicate ecosystems and provide food 
assistance to our Nation's most needy individuals. However, I am 
concerned about several recent reports conducted by the USDA's Office 
of Inspector General, and a report by the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) that criticizes the ability of USDA's Office of Civil Rights to 
process and resolve civil rights cases in a timely fashion. I recognize 
that Secretary Glickman has done much to remedy the civil rights 
problems he inherited when he became Secretary, and I encourage him to 
continue these efforts.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I share the concerns held by the Senator from 
Michigan about USDA's ability to address civil right cases in a timely 
fashion. Failure to resolve civil rights cases involving access to USDA 
farm programs delays justice and threatens the affected farmer's well-
being. The Secretary of Agriculture needs to use his authority to 
provide independent and neutral alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
  Mr. KOHL. Both Senators make important points. The Senate has 
acknowledged the important role that alternative dispute resolution 
plays in addressing civil rights matters.
  Mr. LEVIN. Both the distinguished Senator from New Jersey and myself 
have constituents who have encountered significant delays from USDA in 
addressing their civil rights cases. We want to do all we can to be 
certain that, when applicable, the Secretary of Agriculture will ensure 
the Department's participation in an independent and neutral ADR 
process as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I agree with my good friend from Michigan that the 
Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to resolve these matters.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate these comments and agree that this is a 
serious matter that ought to be addressed by USDA.


                                telework

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will my friend form Wisconsin yield for 
the purpose of a colloquy regarding the telework provision of the 
conference report.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield to my colleague from Minnesota for that purpose.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senate adopted an amendment to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill that directed $3 million to be spent for employer 
outreach, education, and job placement under the USDA/Rural Utilities 
Service Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program (DLT). The conferees 
have changed this provision to report language.
  We have a tremendous need in our rural communities to take advantage 
of today's technology and information revolution. I believe, because it 
essentially allows distance to be erased, telework is a promising tool 
for rural development and for making rural and reservation economies 
sustainable. I would ask my colleague if it is his understanding that 
the Senate's intent can be carried out by USDA Rural Development under 
existing authority.
  Mr. KOHL. I am happy to clarify this for my colleague. He is correct. 
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant Program was 
designed by Congress to enable rural communities to improve the quality 
of educational opportunities and medical service. I believe strongly 
that educational opportunities include worker retraining and 
transitional education. Applicants can partner with local businesses or 
businesses considering moving into a rural area. Schools, community 
colleges, and other teaching institutions partner with the private 
sector today. Within that mandate, this is a program that is truly 
limited only by the innovation of the rural communities it serves.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate this clarification, and I ask my 
colleagues' indulgence for one further question. Would it also be 
correct that USDA Rural Development should promote employment of rural 
residents through teleworking not only through the use of the DLT 
Program, but also through other programs such as the rural business and 
the Community Facilities Program? These programs might allow funds to 
be used to provide employment-related services or high speed 
communications services which may be necessary to make telework a 
reality in rural communities.
  Mr. KOHL. My colleague is correct. Again, USDA Rural Development 
should be encouraged to be innovative, within their statutory 
authority, in making grants for the purpose of promoting telework. In 
addition, USDA should use rural development programs in a manner that 
will allow rural communities to best take advantage of the potential of 
new technology and new methods of doing work, such as telework, in 
building sustainable, diverse rural economies.


                     WATERMELON SUDDEN WILT DISEASE

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, section 804 of H.R. 4461, the conference 
report on the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill, 
provides the Secretary of Agriculture with emergency authority to 
compensate growers for crop losses due to new and emergent pests and 
diseases, including watermelon sudden wilt disease.
  Senator Cochran, I want to thank you for including watermelon sudden 
wilt disease in the list of problems addressed by section 804. This 
disease, which is characterized by wilting leaves and collapsing vines, 
often results in the death of mature watermelon plants. The disease 
became a problem in southwestern Indiana last year and has become a 
much more serious problem in the region this year. Last year, Indiana 
farmers grew $11 million worth of watermelons, ranking sixth in the 
nation. This year production will likely be significantly less. On 
September 19, 2000 USDA's Farm Service Agency office in Indianapolis 
estimated that the disease may be responsible for Indiana watermelon 
losses of up to $4.7 million.
  Despite ongoing study, scientists at Purdue University have not yet 
determined what causes the disease, including whether or not adverse 
weather is a contributing factor. As a result, it appears unlikely that 
Hoosier watermelon growers affected by this problem will be eligible 
for assistance under USDA's existing disaster programs or for 
assistance provided by other sections of the agriculture appropriations 
conference report. Assistance in these cases is generally limited to 
weather-related crop losses. As a result, full implementation by the 
Secretary of Agriculture of the emergency compensation authority 
provided by section 804 is important.
  I must note, however, that section 804 permits, but does not require, 
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide compensation to growers due to 
watermelon sudden wilt disease and other new and emergent pests and 
diseases. Is it the intent of the bill's managers that the Secretary of 
Agriculture fully implement the authority provided by section 804?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, the managers intend that the Secretary of 
Agriculture fully implement section 804 which provides authority to 
compensate growers for crop losses due to new and emergent pests and 
diseases: including Mexican fruit flies, plum pox virus, Pierce's 
disease, grasshoppers and Mormon crickets, and watermelon sudden wilt 
disease. Senator Lugar, as you noted, section 804 is designed to 
provide compensation to growers for crop losses due to several new and 
emergent pests and diseases, none of which may necessarily be a 
weather-related problem. Full implementation of section 804 is 
necessary for growers to receive compensation for these various 
problems.


               fruit fly exclusion and detection program

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with the chairman 
and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to 
discuss one of the greatest threats facing California growers and 
farmers across the nation--infestations of disease-carrying pests which 
can potentially destroy entire crops. Just this past year, California 
has been victimized by a number of pest infestations that have resulted 
in significant quarantine and eradication programs. California's $1 
billion nursery industry is being threatened by red imported fire ants. 
The $2.8 billion grape industry faces complete destruction due to an 
infestation of the glassy winged sharpshooter which spreads Pierce's 
disease, and there is no known cure.
  Mr. KOHL. I am aware of concerns expressed by the senior Senator from 
California that several months ago a 72 square mile quarantine 
affecting 1,470 growers of at least 20 specialty crops

[[Page S10680]]

was finally removed. I am told that no pre or post harvest treatment 
for many of these crops was provided by the USDA and that two fruit 
flies caused almost 150 growers to loss virtually their entire harvest, 
costing almost $3 million. The Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill contains language directing the Secretary of 
Agriculture to use funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
compensate these growers. I expected that this assistance will be 
provided in a timely and efficient manner.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate both the chairman and ranking member's 
willingness to work with me on this issue. Due to this loss of income, 
a number of growers are currently unable to pay their bills or prepare 
for next year's crop.
  This assistance is desperately needed, but I believe that more 
emphasis must be placed on preventing future infestations. I am 
heartened to see that in Fiscal Year 2001, the USDA will hire 17 new 
agriculture inspectors for the San Diego ports of entry. This is a 
badly needed first step. We also need to increase the federal 
investment in California's Medfly Preventive Release Program. If 
California's fruits were quarantined from all foreign markets because 
of Medfly infestations, the State estimates that 35,000 jobs would be 
lost and economic output would be reduced by $3.6 billion.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand the challenges facing California's growers. 
The Administration's budget request of $31.91 million for the Program 
earmarks only $300,000 for equipment and maintenance of the State's 
Preventive Release Program. The fiscal year 2001 Agriculture 
appropriations bill provides $32.61 million for the Fruit Fly Exclusion 
and Detection Program. The $700,000 above the Administration's request 
is to be used to enhance the release program and detection trapping in 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
their courtesy and understanding. On behalf of California's growers, I 
want to express my appreciation for your efforts to help shield the 
State from future fruit fly infestations.


                        american heritage rivers

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the record the 
intent of language included under funding for the National Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the Agriculture Appropriation fiscal 
year 2001 bill. I want to point out that interagency coordination of 
federal resources is desirable and certainly something many of us have 
been supporting as a way to eliminate unnecessary activities and 
spending. We don't want to spend money in Washington duplicating 
positions and processes. We want money in the field helping local 
communities. The NRCS ``Conservation Operations'' and ``Watershed 
Surveys and Planning'' funding sections contain specific language that 
refers to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which is coordinated 
by an interagency committee to assist communities seeking technical 
assistance and opportunities for Federal grants. I would like to point 
out that this initiative has proven to work well for participating 
communities in my state and others.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. While the language in this conference report places a 
limitation on assistance by NRCS for activities related to the American 
Heritage Rivers, it should not be intended to penalize or disadvantage 
communities that seek or apply for grants and technical assistance. 
There is no specific limitation in this conference report that would 
preclude the NRCS from undertaking other authorized activities that are 
similar to those provided under the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative. Would the Chairman and the Ranking Member agree with this 
interpretation?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
  Mr. KOHL. Yes, that is correct.


                        AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the conference report includes funding 
for American Heritage Rivers program under the Conservation Operations 
and Watershed Surveys and Planning accounts of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, NRCS. Funding for this program is limited to that 
requested in the President's budget. It is my understanding that there 
are communities which are in the final stages of being included in the 
American Heritage Rivers program, including Vicksburg and Natchez, 
Mississippi.
  It is not our intention to limit these funds to those communities 
that were included in the program when the budget was submitted. 
Further, if additional communities are added during fiscal year 2001, 
they should be eligible for all funds available for the American 
Heritage Rivers program. Also, technical assistance can be provided, 
without limitation, by the NRCS to farmers or communities in an 
American Heritage River designated area.


                 national rural development partnership

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman 
Cochran and Senator Kohl for the hard work they have put into the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a 
challenging process, and they have done an excellent job balancing 
competing interests within the confines of a balanced budget.
  I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee regarding the funding for the National Rural Development 
Partnership (NRDP) and state rural development councils (SRDCs). As you 
may be aware, NRDP and SRDCs have always depended on allocations of 
discretionary funds from USDA and four other federal agencies. They 
have never had a stable and predictable source of funds.
  Earlier this year, the Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on 
Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, which I chair, held 
an oversight hearing on the operations and accomplishments of the NRDP 
and SRDCs. The Subcommittee heard from a number of witnesses, including 
officials of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and 
Health & Human Services, state agencies, and private sector 
representatives. The hearing established the need for some legislative 
foundation and consistent funding. I was recently joined by 27 Senators 
in introducing legislation to accomplish this.
  The legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of 
the Partnership, the National Rural Development Council (NRDP) and 
SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific responsibilities to 
each component of the Partnership and authorizes it to receive Federal 
appropriations.
  This legislation was not passed in time for the FY2001 appropriations 
process, so funding is necessary to keep the program viable until the 
legislation can be passed. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
there is no funding earmarked or specified within the Agriculture 
Appropriations conference report for this program. However, the 
Secretary has made discretionary funds available for this program in 
the past and it is my hope he would continue to do so, and that we can 
encourage him in this regard, until freestanding legislation can be 
passed.
  Mr. BURNS. I would like to join Senator Craig in support of the 
National Rural Development Partnership. This program is extremely 
important to states like Montana, where we have a large rural 
population and long distances between our towns. I would hope that the 
Secretary of Agriculture will continue to fund the NRDP and provide 
additional funds for the future expansion of this very important 
program.
  Mr. GORTON. Washington state's rural communities have also benefited 
by the National Rural Development Partnership, particularly those 
regions that have been forced from their natural resource-based 
economies. For the sake of those who have come to rely on the NRDP, I 
would sincerely hope the Secretary of Agriculture would take into 
consideration the few remaining resources available to these 
communities when allocating discretionary funds in the future.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to echo my colleagues' support of the 
National Rural Development Partnership and its affiliates, state rural 
development councils. These councils, in Vermont and over 35 other 
states, are playing an important role bringing together the many 
governmental and non-governmental entities that work to improve 
conditions in rural areas. I sincerely hope that Secretary of 
Agriculture will continue to support this program while authorization 
legislation is finalized by the Congress.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I commend the Senators for their interest in this 
program.

[[Page S10681]]

I want to assure the gentlemen that it is the Committee's belief that 
the Secretary of Agriculture should continue to provide funding from 
discretionary amounts for this program.


         The Initiative for future agriculture and food systems

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, I note the language in the bill specifying 
certain institutions that may receive grants under the Initiative for 
Future Agriculture and Food Systems. I would ask the distinguished 
chairman if it is his understanding that the program may continue to be 
carried out in the same manner as during fiscal year 2000 as authorized 
by law.
  Mr. COCHRAN. This language does not intend to create any additional 
restrictions beyond the restriction on which institutions are eligible 
to receive grants.


                  solid waste management grant program

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask consent to engage in a colloquy 
with my colleague, Senator Kohl, the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and 
Related Agencies. In particular, I would like to discuss the Department 
of Agriculture's solid waste management grant program, funded as a line 
item within the utilities section of the Rural Community Advancement 
Program. Authorized in section 310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and 
Rural Development Act, these grants allow public agencies and nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local communities for 
reducing water pollution and improving solid waste management.
  I ask the Senator, whose State is a neighbor of mine, whether he 
agrees with, and whether it is his understanding that the subcommittee 
would support, my urging USDA to direct up to $1 million of the solid 
waste management grants to the regional, nonprofit, technical 
assistance organizations known as Rural Community Assistance Programs. 
These organizations have done an outstanding job serving the smallest, 
poorest and hardest to serve rural communities in the Midwest and 
across the country. The Rural Community Assistance Programs are key 
partners within USDA's Rural Community Advancement Program. Their 
nationwide network of technical assistance providers--serving water and 
wastewater system needs for thousands of rural communities--is highly 
qualified and well placed to improve the effectiveness of rural solid 
waste management.
  For example, the regional Rural Community Assistance Program which 
serves my State of Minnesota is the Midwest Assistance Program (MAP). 
Based in New Prague, MN, MAP serves nine midwestern States. The 
organization has carried out solid waste projects in collaboration with 
USDA, the Indian Health Service, and with individual tribes in 
communities throughout the region. MAP is now beginning to target 
assistance to Minnesota communities for the development of small 
transfer stations, to improve recycling and better manage solid waste.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's attention to this 
issue. He is correct to point out the positive role of the Rural 
Community Assistance Programs in helping carry out this and other 
important activities in rural areas. The Senator is aware that the 
President requested $5 million for these solid waste grants for fiscal 
year 2001. But whereas there is a general acknowledgment of the 
effectiveness of the program, we are abe to fund the program only to a 
level of $2.7 million in this bill, due to broader fiscal constraints. 
In view of that limitation, I think the Senator is correct to urge the 
Department to give special consideration to those very small, often 
poor, rural communities which can be the hardest to serve. For that 
reason, I agree, and I believe the subcommittee would agree, that the 
Department should be urged to consider directing up to $1 million of 
the solid waste grants to the regional Rural Community Assistance 
Programs, which have an excellent record of serving such communities.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again about the 
Agriculture appropriations conference report, and specifically to 
comment on two major provisions that cause me grave concern. One 
relates to several aspects of U.S.-Cuba policy, and the other to the 
reimportation of prescription drugs from abroad. I spoke on October 6, 
when the language first became public, at some length about my 
opposition to the Cuba provisions in the conference report. At that 
time, I also expressed support for other provisions of this legislation 
that dramatically loosen the licensing and financing restrictions on 
sales of food and medicine to other countries that have been designated 
as terrorist states--North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Libya.
  I continue to find it appalling that Cuba has been singled out for 
more restrictive treatment than the other countries I have just 
mentioned, who are far more of a potential threat to U.S. foreign 
policy and national security interests than Cuba has ever been.
  I would call my colleagues' attention to a remarkable photo that 
appeared on the cover of the the New York Times on October 11. This 
photo showed President Clinton meeting with high ranking North Korean 
General Jo Myong-Nok--the first official meeting of its kind in more 
than 50 years. The purpose of the general's visit to Washington was to 
begin a dialogue on ways to enhance relations between our two 
countries. Secretary Albright has announced she will visit North Korea 
in the next several weeks. And I won't be surprised if President 
Clinton also decided to go there before leaving office. How the world 
has changed.
  Let me be clear. I am not opposed to diplomatic efforts to ease 
tensions on the Korean Peninsula. But I think it is fair to say that 
North Korea, with its missile programs and hostile government, 
represents a much greater threat to the United States than Cuba. Cuba 
no longer seeks to export revolution to its neighbors and is no longer 
financed by the Soviet Union. Yet there have been no high level 
meetings of Cuban and American officials held to explore the 
possibility of improving relations between two close neighbors. In 
fact, it has been quite the opposite--no one above the rank of Deputy 
Assistant Secretary in our government can visit Havana or conduct 
discussions with Cuban officials about such matters. To say that our 
policy is incredibly skewed when it comes to matters related to Cuba is 
an understatement.
  Emotions and raw domestic politics prevent us from having normal 
discourse with a small island 90 miles off our coast while, at the same 
time, we are trying to normalize relations with communist North Korea. 
A contradiction? I think so.
  We cannot have our cake and eat it too. By singling out Cuba for 
highly restrictive treatment, while throwing the door wide open for 
countries like Iran and Sudan, we are casting ourselves as hypocrites 
in the realm of foreign policy, and we are arbitrarily rewarding one 
oppressive regime while castigating another.
  American farmers will not be deceived for very long by supporters of 
this language who are assuring them that they will indeed be able to 
sell their crops in Cuban markets. It will quickly become apparent the 
first time they try to put together a deal that the complexity of the 
law makes it virtually impossible to complete a sale to that country.
  Furthermore, the codification of existing travel restrictions on 
Americans wishing to travel to Cuba is shameful and irresponsible. By 
passing this bill, we take away the administration's discretion to 
grant licenses on a case-by-case basis in circumstances that do not 
fall into the now codified categories of permissible travel, 
significantly harming our ability to work to change Cuban society. 
These restrictions are unfair, hypocritical, and inexplicable to 
average Americans who believe that their right to travel is a 
fundamental freedom enshrined in the Constitution.
  I also take issue with another major provision that was jammed into 
this legislation by the Republican leadership--I am speaking of a 
provision which will allow the reimportation of pharmaceuticals from 
foreign countries back into the United States. This provision is of 
concern for several reasons, not the least of which is that it ignores 
the larger question of whether Congress is going to give all seniors an 
affordable, reliable drug benefit through Medicare. This provision is 
far from a comprehensive solution to the very real problem millions of 
seniors face all over the country in affording their medicines. It is 
my hope that the

[[Page S10682]]

enactment of this legislation does not distract us from working toward 
the goal of providing all seniors with real Medicare drug coverage.
  Having laid out my objections, I must state that I am prepared to 
vote for this bill because it contains funding for many programs that 
are beneficial to American families and American farmers. These 
provisions include financial relief for hard hit farmers who have 
suffered economic and natural disasters, funding for the Women, 
Infants, and Children Program for school lunches, and food stamps for 
our less fortunate. These are all vital programs and deserve the 
support of this body.
  The situation we find ourselves in today speaks volumes about those 
who would slip objectionable language into a bill as important as this 
one and put in jeopardy its passage. Fortunately, the legislative 
process does not end with the passage of a single bill. Next year I 
will be back in this Chamber seeking to put our relations with the 
Cuban people on the same footing as those of other peoples around the 
world, and to restore every American's right to travel freely--even to 
Cuba if they so choose. I will also be working to enact truly 
meaningful legislation that will ensure that prescription drugs are 
available and affordable for every American family. These issues are 
not going to go away with the adjournment of this Congress and in time, 
reason will prevail on these matters. The American people will demand 
it.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FY2001 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill. First I would like to thank Chairman Cochran and 
Senator Kohl for the hard work they have put into the Fiscal Year 2001 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and 
they have done an excellent job balancing competing interests. While I 
don't agree with everything in this bill, I believe this bill provides 
vital funding for several programs in my state and across the nation.
  This conference report includes much needed emergency spending to 
deal with the fires and drought in the West. As you all know, the West 
was hit hard this year by wild fires. In Idaho alone over 1.2 million 
acres were burned. I visited a ranch where, within a couple of hours 
time period, a fire had destroyed the rancher's business. Of this 
rancher's 800 head of cattle, close to 600 were killed or had to be 
destroyed because they were so badly burned. I think this is an 
emergency, and it is only right that Congress provide funding to assist 
producers who have been impacted by such a natural disaster. That is 
why I support the livestock indemnity payments included in this 
conference report. Ranchers that were lucky enough to get their cattle 
out of the fires path are now searching for feed for their cattle and 
are working to rehabilitate the pastures that were destroyed. This 
conference report helps them by providing livestock feed assistance, as 
well as Emergency Conservation, Watershed and Flood Prevention 
Operations and Pasture Recovery Program funding to help defray the 
costs of rehabilitating the pasture lands. I also support this.
  However, I do not believe that all of the spending called emergency 
in the conference report is really emergency. I am disappointed to see 
the size of the emergency spending as well as some of the authorizing 
contained in this conference report. This and some of the other bills 
represent a bad omen for the future. We need to have a realistic budget 
resolution every year and we need to enforce it. We need fiscal 
discipline to maintain an adequate surplus. We will need that surplus 
to protect and modernize Social Security, to save and reform Medicare, 
to meet high priorities we know will be there in defense and other 
areas, and to provide some relief to the most heavily taxed generation 
in American history.
  The bills we are considering at the end of session do not represent a 
disaster but they are a bad start in terms of planning for our future. 
I am not pointing fingers. I think our current process is not 
responding well to the new idea of surpluses. But we need to start now 
to do a better job.
  I am also concerned with some of the legislative provisions contained 
in this bill. I do not support a rollback of welfare reform, and I am 
concerned that some of the provisions contained in this conference 
report are a start at doing just that. While I am strongly opposed to 
these provisions, this bill contains many things that benefit my state 
as well as help that is sorely needed. On balance, I have been forced 
to conclude that I cannot, in good conscious vote against this bill 
even though I do not agree with each and every item included in this 
conference report.
  I hope the Senate passes this bill today and the President signs it 
into law. However, I hope that we will reform the process so next year 
we are not in the same situation we find ourselves in today.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few more points on 
the hunger relief provisions.
  The centerpiece of this package would allow states to reform their 
treatment of cars and trucks when determining whether a household meets 
the food stamp resource eligibility limits. Rural families need to look 
for and travel to employment, to get groceries, and for a host of other 
purposes. Rural roads and seasonal driving hazards make a dependable 
vehicle a real necessity. Particularly in an era of welfare reform, we 
should not be forcing households to choose between reliable 
transportation and needed food assistance, as current rules effectively 
do.
  States have recognized this, and a great many of them have greatly 
reformed their treatment of cars in their TANF-funded programs. This is 
particularly true of the first car that a household has. Under this 
provision, states would be free to apply a more realistic TANF policy 
to a household's primary vehicle even if its policy is to exclude that 
vehicle completely from evaluations of the family's resources. If the 
household had an additional car or truck and its TANF policy was 
stricter than food stamp rules for second vehicles, that additional car 
or truck should then be evaluated under the usual food stamp 
procedures.
  This change in the law gives a state the broadest flexibility to 
adopt a policy that effects vehicles from any assistance program it 
operates under the TANF statute. The Secretary has appropriately 
interpreted similar language already contained within the Food Stamp 
Act as applying to any program that receives support either from 
federal TANF block grant funds or from the funds that the TANF statute 
requires states to spend as ``maintenance of effort'' in order to draw 
down the TANF block grant. A similar construction is appropriate here. 
All that would be required is that the program get TANF block grant or 
maintenance of effort funds that it provide a benefit that can meet the 
definition of assistance, not necessarily cash assistance. For example, 
a state could apply the policy it uses in a child care program because 
HHS's regulations define child care as assistance when provided to non-
working families.
  Once a state decided to apply the policies from a state program to 
evaluating cars for food stamp purposes, those policies would apply to 
all food stamp households in the state, whether or not they receive or 
even are eligible to receive TANF benefits of any kind.
  The other Hunger Relief Act provision would raise the cap on the food 
stamp excess shelter cost this March and then adjust it for inflation 
beginning October 1, 2001. The shelter deduction reflects the commons 
sense principle that the same money cannot be spent on both housing 
costs and food. It provides that when a household is spending more than 
half of its income on food or mortgage, utilities, and similar costs, 
the amount of those costs that exceed half of its income will be 
deducted when calculating how much the household can be expected to be 
able to spend on food. The shelter deduction is also important in rural 
America, in part because fewer people in rural communities receive 
housing subsidies and in part because housing costs can easily exceed 
half of the relatively modest wages that some low-income families 
receive in rural areas.
  Unfortunately, the shelter deduction is arbitrarily capped at $300 
for households that do not contain an elderly or disabled member. This 
means that low-income families that are not getting housing subsidies 
and that are struggling under the burden of extremely high shelter 
costs are getting unrealistically low food stamp allotments.

[[Page S10683]]

This provision should help, in particular by making sure that the cap 
does not lose ground to inflation. I hope that in reauthorization, we 
can revisit this issue and fully provide fair and equitable treatment 
to these hard-pressed households the vast majority of which have 
children.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to share my 
thoughts on the prescription drug reimportation provision included in 
the Agriculture appropriations conference report before the Senate. As 
my colleagues know, I have been concerned for a long while that 
American consumers are charged two to three times more for prescription 
drugs than consumers in other countries pay. In fact, in June of 1999, 
I introduced bipartisan legislation, the International Prescription 
Drug Parity Act, to address this unfair pricing situation by allowing 
U.S. pharmacists and drug wholesalers to reimport FDA-approved 
prescription drugs from other countries at a fraction of the cost.
  Ten months ago on a cold, snowy day, I accompanied a group of North 
Dakota senior citizens and pharmacists on a trip to Emerson in 
Manitoba, Canada. Emerson, Canada, is a tiny one-horse town just 5 
miles from the North Dakota-Canadian border. In Emerson, I watched as 
my North Dakota constituents saved hundreds of dollars each on the 
exact same prescription drugs available to them in the United States.
  One of the folks who went with me was a 70-year-old Medicare 
beneficiary from Fargo, ND, named Sylvia Miller. Sylvia has diabetes, 
heart problems, and emphysema, and she takes at least seven different 
medications each day for her various ailments. Sylvia told me that last 
year she received $4,700 in Social Security benefits and paid $4,900 
for her prescription drugs. ``Things don't add up, do they?'' she 
asked.
  By making the short trip across the border to Canada, Sylvia was able 
to cut her monthly prescription drug bill in half. As Sylvia said in a 
Fargo Forum article about this trip, ``It sure would be nice if I could 
just go over to my own drug store and get those prices.''
  Sylvia couldn't be more right. No American should be forced to travel 
to Canada or Mexico just to get more affordable prices for his or her 
prescription drugs. Yet a prescription drug that costs $1 in the United 
States costs only 64 cents in Canada, 65 cents in Great Britain, 57 
cents in France, and 51 cents in Italy. Those price differences compel 
many senior citizens who are struggling to pay for their medications 
and make ends meet to leave the United States to get lower prices 
elsewhere.
  Time and again over the last several years I have been asked by North 
Dakota consumers why the global economy doesn't work when it comes to 
prescription drugs. Why can't local pharmacists travel to Canada to buy 
these same medications at the lower prices and pass along the savings 
to their customers? Good question.
  The answer is that, under current Federal law, only the 
pharmaceutical manufacturers can reimport prescription drugs into the 
United States from another country--even though these drugs were 
originally made in America and approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration. The lack of competition in the U.S. marketplace has 
created a situation in which the big drug companies can charge American 
consumers the maximum the market can bear. And if their 18 percent 
profit margins are any indication, that is exactly what the drugmakers 
are doing.
  During the Senate's debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill, 
Senator Jeffords and I, along with Senators Wellstone, Gorton, and 
others, offered an amendment to allow U.S. pharmacists and wholesalers 
to reimport FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada, Mexico, and 
other countries where these medications are sold at a fraction of the 
price. Our amendment included appropriate safeguards to ensure that 
only safe and effective FDA-approved medications, made in FDA-approved 
manufacturing facilities and for which safe handling could be assured, 
would be imported. This amendment was passed overwhelmingly by the 
Senate by a 74-21 vote.
  The House also overwhelmingly passed amendments to the Agriculture 
bill back in July that would have allowed for prescription drug 
importation, although without the safety measures adopted in the 
Senate. Normally at this point, a House-Senate conference committee 
would have begun meeting to iron out the differences between the House 
and Senate bills. This year, however, most of the details were worked 
out behind closed doors and without the involvement of most of the 
members of the conference committee. As a result, many of us who have 
been working on prescription drug importation legislation for nearly 2 
years were shut out of the negotiations.
  I am very disappointed with the route that the House and Senate 
leadership took to develop the final reimportation language. When the 
Agriculture Appropriations Conference Committee, on which I served, 
met, the conferees were presented with final language that had been 
negotiated largely among only the House and Senate majority leadership. 
While this language is similar to the Jeffords-Dorgan amendment passed 
in July, there are some changes in the language. Some of these changes 
represent improvement, but some changes were not made that should have 
been.
  I share in my colleagues' disappointment that some of the changes 
that I and others proposed, which would have improved this provision, 
were not included in the final language. After the Senate passed the 
Jeffords-Dorgan amendment, a few changes were brought to our attention 
that would help to ensure that our amendment meets the goal of 
achieving lower prices for American consumers. Therefore, during the 
conference, I tried to strengthen the final language in a few key 
areas.
  The changes I proposed would have provided greater certainty that 
this approach would meet my goal of lowering drug prices for American 
consumers, but unfortunately they were rejected. First, the FDA 
suggested, and I agreed, that we should require the drug companies to 
provide importers with the FDA-approved labeling. I think it is pretty 
indisputable that I, as well as the other authors of the various 
prescription drug importation bills, intended all along for imported 
products to be FDA-approved, including having the appropriate labeling. 
I would prefer that the final provision make this explicit. However, I 
believe the final language, which gives the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services new authority to do whatever she believes is necessary 
to facilitate importation, provides the needed authorization to 
accomplish this end through the regulations implementing importation. 
It is my hope that the Secretary who implements this provision will 
write strong rules to ensure that reimportation will succeed in giving 
Americans access to safe, cost-effective medicines.
  Second, Congressman Waxman and others pointed out that drug companies 
could prevent reimportation from occurring by requiring their foreign 
distributors to sign contracts promising not to re-sell their products 
to U.S. importers. To address this concern, the final provision 
includes language not in the original Jeffords-Dorgan amendment to 
prevent the drugmakers from entering into agreements with their 
distributors that would have the effect of preventing reimportation. 
Here, too, I wish that this language were stronger and broader, and I 
unsuccessfully proposed strengthening it.
  I have no doubt that the drug companies are already searching for 
ways to thwart this legislation. If the drug manufacturers do take 
steps to clearly and purposefully circumvent this legislation, I 
personally am committed to closing any loopholes or taking another tact 
altogether to achieve fairer drug prices for American consumers.
  Let me make one final point. I think this legislation sends an 
important message to the big drug companies that Congress will no 
longer tolerate unfair prescription drug prices. But this legislation 
is just one step, and it is no substitute for adding a prescription 
drug benefit to the Medicare program.
  I have been saying all along that we have a two-prong problem with 
prescription drugs in this country. First, prescription drugs cost too 
much, and I have been fighting for a strong reimportation provision so 
that we can put pressure on the drug companies to lower their prices. 
Second, there are

[[Page S10684]]

too many Medicare beneficiaries who have no prescription drug coverage, 
and they need it. When the Medicare program was created in 1965, 
prescription drugs weren't the significant part of the practice of 
medicine that they are today. Congress must modernize the Medicare 
program by creating a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, and we 
should do it this year.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to put on the record my 
concerns about numerous provisions contained in this year's conference 
report of the Ag appropriations bill. Specifically, I am greatly 
concerned that this year's bill single-handedly turns back a number of 
reforms made by the 1996 farm bill and moves us further away from an 
agriculture policy that looks to the markets rather than government for 
survival. The danger of following such a philosophy is that government 
is not likely to have the will to sustain the ag industry indefinitely, 
so that when the political will to support agriculture dries up, there 
will be massive calamity.
  There are legitimate ag emergencies occurring in the country right 
now. My family is still on the farm, Kansas is the 4th largest 
agricultural-producing state in the Nation--and I myself served as 
Secretary of Agriculture for the State of Kansas before coming to the 
U.S. Senate. I am not here to find fault with providing additional aid 
to farmers. Indeed, it is in our national interest to do so. My problem 
is not with the concept of government assistance to farmers--but rather 
in the shape this assistance is beginning to take--especially this 
year.
  Specifically, I am referring to the treatment of pet commodities like 
sugar and tobacco--which have been exempt from the market-oriented 
reforms faced by most other commodities--including the wheat growers of 
my state, for example. These reforms were set forth in 1996 to move 
farmers closer to the market. Some of my Democratic colleagues have 
accused us of abandoning a financial safety net for farmers--I don't 
see how they can honestly make that claim since farm spending has gone 
up dramatically since the '96 law was enacted. The Congressional 
Research Service notes that program payments combined with emergency 
spending for calendar year 1999 reached $22.7 billion--the highest ever 
and we have continued to provide substantial support to our farmers in 
2000--well above that which would have been allowed under previous farm 
bills. If this conference report merely continued this tradition of 
backing up the market-reforms of the 1996 farm bill, I would have no 
problem--but this conference report takes serious steps to undermine 
those reforms--and that is wrong.
  This conference report contains a provision to change the 1996 farm 
bill language on marketing loans for sugar--now, instead of having to 
meet a certain threshold, non-recourse loans will be guaranteed for the 
next two years. This clears the way for additional payments to sugar 
producers on top of an already complex quota system which allows them 
to control the amount of imported competition. We don't do this for 
wheat, corn or soybeans--we should not do it for sugar.
  One of the most egregious parts of this bill is language which will 
promote increased tobacco production from the same government which is 
trying to decrease domestic demand for tobacco products.
  Currently, co-ops can and do purchase low quality or remaining 
tobacco not bid on by cigarette companies in order to artificially keep 
the price high. This bill will now allow the co-ops to then sell, this 
inferior tobacco to the government (through Commodity Credit 
Corporation funds). This measure is estimated to cost the government 
$510 million and cuts out flute-cured tobacco grown in North Carolina--
which means there will likely be a similar fix that doubles the cost to 
the taxpayer.
  After obtaining this left-over tobacco, the U.S. is not allowed to 
market this tobacco domestically for fear of displacing the controlled 
market and we will not be able to unload it on the world market due to 
restrictions about exporting tobacco and the already high amounts of 
world production that are much cheaper than this U.S. price-inflated 
tobacco--especially since this is the inferior ``left-over'' tobacco.
  To make matters worse, this language prevents this government action 
from affecting the quota limits for tobacco growing. This means that 
once the oversupply is wiped out by selling excess tobacco to the 
government, tobacco quotas will increase and allow for the growing of 
more tobacco--which will lead to the need for another bailout next 
year.
  For no other commodity do we have a situation like this: the U.S. 
government actively encourages a reduction in the use of tobacco, 
particularly by children--and now the same government is going to 
subsidize and encourage expanded tobacco production. This is one of the 
worst market-distorting abuses I've ever seen--at a time when we have 
repeatedly told farmers of most other commodities to turn toward the 
market and adjust to the new world economy.
  Unfortunately, the Senate does not have the opportunity to vote on 
these measures--we are forced to vote for these offensive programs 
because they are tied to an agriculture appropriations bill which is so 
important to our Nation--which provides a measure of unilateral 
sanctions reform many of us in this body have fought for--for years. 
This is no mistake--the numerous faulty measures contained in this bill 
were added at the last minute in conference--precisely because they 
would never pass on their own, nor should they.
  It is truly a disappointment that the conference report to such an 
important bill contains the very means to undermine the market reforms 
this Congress has pushed for, because of the interests of a few.
  This bill is a very important one--and just as the conference 
predicted, it is too important for me to vote against--but I fell 
compelled to express my frustration, and my disappointment in this 
process--and the hypocrisy it creates.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the FY 
2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill and offer my support for the 
prescription drug reimportation provisions included in this conference 
report. While I do not believe the provisions are perfect and I 
continue to have grave concerns about the so-called ``non-
discrimination'' language, I believe this final product represents a 
good faith compromise which will meet the needs of the American people.
  However, I would like to emphasize that my support for reimportation 
was and remains contingent upon the legislation specifically ensuring 
that any prescription drug reimported from another country meets all of 
the United States' safety standards. In other words, our citizens must 
remain confident that their prescriptions will be filled with products 
that are safe and effective. In particular, I am pleased that under 
these provisions, FDA must issue regulations requiring that reimported 
products be FDA-approved drugs that meet all of the conditions of the 
New Drug Application, or NDA. It is especially important to maintain 
our gold standard of drug quality, that all such products comply fully 
with what FDA calls the ``chemistry, manufacturing, and controls'' 
portions of the NDA. Compliance with these requirements assures that 
the drugs not only have the necessary ingredients but also have been 
manufactured according to the same specifications as the domestic drug 
product, and the same high-quality process.
  I respectfully ask unanimous consent that several letters outlining 
concerns similar to mine be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                        Committee on Commerce,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2000.
     Dr. David A. Kessler,
     Dean, Yale University School of Medicine,
     New Haven, CT.
       Dear Dr. Kessler: On June 29, 1999, you were kind enough to 
     write me regarding the dangers of weakening provisions of the 
     Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). I am now in receipt 
     of your recent letter to Senator Dorgan, which is supportive 
     of significant changes to PDMA. I continue to see real risk 
     in making those changes, so I would appreciate your insight 
     as to how safety can be assured.
       Your June letter cited my multi-year subcommittee 
     investigation of re-imported prescription drugs which 
     demonstrated that

[[Page S10685]]

     adulterated, misbranded, and counterfeit drugs were entering 
     the U.S. market, posing as American-made. You noted that the 
     problems found in our investigation were addressed by PDMA 
     provisions designed to prevent the ``introduction into U.S. 
     Commerce of prescription drugs that were improperly stored, 
     handled, and shipped'' and to reduce ``opportunities for 
     importation of counterfeit and unapproved prescription 
     drugs.'' Your letter went on to state, ``In my view, the 
     dangers of allowing re-importation of prescription drugs may 
     be even greater today than they were in 1986. . . . I know of 
     no changed circumstances that require either a shift in FDA 
     policy or the passage of legislation to repeal PDMA's 
     prohibition on re-importing drugs. Furthermore, I believe 
     that such a repeal of change in policy would re-create the 
     substantial public health risks PDMA was designed to 
     eliminate.''
       Your September letter now says, ``if FDA is given the 
     resources necessary to ensure that imported, FDA-approved 
     prescription drugs are the authentic product, made in an FDA-
     approved manufacturing facility, [you] believe the 
     importation of these products could be done without causing a 
     greater health risk to American consumers that currently 
     [exists].'' Unfortunately, much of your confidence seems to 
     not only be dependent on whether FDA will in fact 
     receive those additional resources, but also whether FDA 
     can in reality undertake the very tasks that were not 
     being done before the PDMA was signed into law.
       While FDA has indeed argued that it will need substantial 
     additional resources to undertake this monumental new task, I 
     am not convinced it has done a thorough analysis of what this 
     undertaking will actually cost. For example, while FDA has 
     provided the Committee with a cursory three-page document on 
     expected budgetary needs (approximately $23 million for the 
     initial ramp-up years, and approximately $90 million for 
     succeeding years), I remain concerned at the lack of 
     specificity in FDA's effort. When asked by Committee staff 
     for the actual work papers supporting the assumptions made in 
     this document, staff was told that no such supporting 
     documents even exist.
       Moreover, certain FDA assumptions reveal other concerns. 
     For example, on page two of its document, FDA mentions that, 
     ``[g]iven the expectation that criminal activity will 
     increase with implementation [of the proposed plan], it is 
     expected that investigations and other supporting laboratory 
     work would increase.'' FDA clearly recognizes that additional 
     criminal elements will attempt to undermine the very 
     ``medical armamentarium'' you refer to in your letter.
       In short, Dr. Kessler, the caveats in your letter raise 
     several questions on which I would appreciate your help:
       (1) A June 8, 2000, hearing by the Subcommittee on 
     Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce 
     revealed that FDA is now substantially behind in their 
     inspections of foreign firms that ship drug products into the 
     U.S., and that much of this lag can be attributed to the same 
     resource constraints that plagued your tenure at FDA. You 
     point out that the success of the proposed legislation hinges 
     directly on whether FDA is properly funded. Did the FDA 
     adequately fund foreign inspections during your tenure as 
     Commissioner? Do you believe FDA will actually receive the 
     full amount necessary to competently address the burdensome 
     new tasks imposed by this legislation, particularly given 
     that FDA is already not afforded enough resources to 
     presently oversee the production, movement, and final 
     delivery of drug products now sent to the U.S. from foreign 
     sources? What might happen if sufficient resources are not 
     available?
       (2) On a recent trip to China to investigate issues 
     relating to both FDA foreign inspections and pharmaceutical 
     counterfeiting, committee staff were told by several security 
     officials that counterfeit material is often mixed into 
     shipments of legitimate products, as an additional tactic to 
     elude regulators. Thus, rather than entire shipments being 
     counterfeit, in some cases, only a part of a total shipment 
     may be illegitimate. Would batch testing which is what the 
     proposed legislation envisions as the primary test to 
     determine authenticity, be a reliable method for protecting 
     the U.S. consumers from potentially rogue and dangerous 
     counterfeit drugs? If a batch test were only to test the 
     legitimate product, how, under this legislation, will a 
     portion of counterfeit material be detected? Is there a 
     methodology for doing this? Finally, FDA has long argued 
     that quality assurance cannot be ``tested'' into a system 
     (hence, the purpose behind the current foreign inspection 
     program), which is why they have rejected batch testing as 
     a final test for finished product and bulk materials sent 
     to the U.S. Do you believe that batch testing will 
     suitably meet the same stringent safety requirements long 
     relied upon by the agency?
       (3) As you are aware, the PDMA, and the implementing 
     regulations established standards for storage and handling of 
     medicines as they move from a manufacturer to a retail 
     pharmacy. These provisions were enacted because 
     pharmaceuticals are very sensitive to various environmental 
     factors, and drugs are thus packaged under controlled 
     conditions. Storage of pharmaceuticals under extreme 
     environments, as you know, can lead to premature 
     deterioration of the drug. As the testing requirements for 
     product degradation called for in the Jeffords amendment will 
     provide information on drug potency at the point a test is 
     conducted (and not across the shelf life of the drug), there 
     is no guarantee that a product imported from another country 
     will arrive with roughly the same shelf life as envisioned by 
     the manufacturer. If drug products have been subjected to 
     temperature extremes while being shipped or stored, or are 
     improperly repackaged, the medicines could not be guaranteed 
     to meet its specifications up to the expiration date. On the 
     recent trip to China, committee staff was told by a security 
     official that he has seen one batch of drug product literally 
     circle the globe several times, over the course of more than 
     a year, including being stored in temperatures in excess of 
     40 degrees centigrade, before ultimately being bought by an 
     importer. Imported drugs will require repackaging and 
     relabeling (so that the imported product conforms with an 
     FDA-approved and required dosage form, packaging, and product 
     labeling for the American market), so there is a very real 
     chance that an American patient will unknowingly receive 
     pharmaceuticals that are not fully efficacious because of 
     premature loss of potency. Do you agree with this assessment? 
     Specifically, how can these very real and potentially 
     dangerous possibilities be dealt with in this legislation or 
     its implementation, so that we can ensure that the health and 
     well-being of American patients is not compromised?
       (4) As you know, in the United States, pharmaceutical 
     recalls are initiated by manufacturers because a manufacturer 
     can quickly and efficiently, through its wholesale 
     distribution system, located products. In the case of 
     imported drug products under the proposed amendments, a 
     manufacturer may not have a systematic way of knowing where a 
     drug originated, or even if a product has been transshipped 
     to multiple countries before entering the United States. The 
     Jeffords amendment allows not only for a drug to be shipped 
     through multiple foreign locations, but also for a drug to be 
     transferred among any number of intermediaries. Because of 
     the likelihood of repackaging, it is not even certain that 
     the product will be labeled with the original manufacturers 
     lot number. How can a manufacturer's recall be administered 
     efficiently and effectively under these new conditions?
       I appreciate your attention to this matter. In light of the 
     major public health implications associated with loosening 
     reimportation restrictions, I daresay that we will be 
     corresponding well into the future on these issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
     Ranking Member.
                                  ____

                                               September 20, 2000.
     Hon. Joe Skeen,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
         Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Joe: As you know, the House adopted two amendments to 
     the Agriculture Appropriations bill relating to the 
     reimportation and importation of pharmaceutical products from 
     abroad. I voted against both these amendments and remain 
     concerned about the potential impact of these proposals on 
     the health and safety of American consumers and the future 
     integrity of the U.S. drug supply.
       While the House amendments were characterized as simply 
     providing for the personal importation of pharmaceuticals for 
     personal use, they actually go beyond this to reverse 
     longstanding policy in this regard. In my view, such an 
     important change with implications for American consumers 
     should not be implemented through the appropriations process. 
     Such changes warrant careful thought and deliberation through 
     the regular legislative process.
       I recall the congressional investigation in the mid-1980's 
     that led to the enactment of the Prescription Drug Marketing 
     Act and current ban on pharmaceutical reimportation. At the 
     time, there was considerable evidence of both the 
     counterfeiting and diversion of pharmaceutical products 
     outside the United States. I do not believe that the 
     situation has changed. In fact, it may have become worse with 
     the advent of Internet purchases. I agree that seniors need 
     help paying for their prescription drugs, and voted for our 
     plan to do that. But now is not the time to weaken the rules 
     that have protected American patients for more than a decade.
       I urge you to address these concerns by dropping these 
     provisions from the Agriculture Appropriations bill in 
     conference.
       With best personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the many long hours of work by 
my colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to develop 
this legislation. I admire the efforts of my friend and colleague, 
Senator Cochran. I believe we all owe him our gratitude for his 
leadership on behalf of our nation's agriculture industry, including 
its small family farmers and ranchers. I am well aware that putting 
these bills together is never easy and seems recently to be an almost 
thankless task.
  There is much in this bill worthy of enthusiastic support. I am 
particularly pleased that the conferees have included a number of 
provisions that will

[[Page S10686]]

benefit farmers and ranchers in the West.
  For example, the entire West will benefit from pasture and forage 
research that is funded by this bill. The information we obtain from 
this Utah State University program not only makes our livestock 
producers more efficient, but also contributes significantly to the 
health of our pasture lands in the West.
  Another important contribution to research in the conference report 
is the funding for Utah State's Poisonous Plant Laboratory. The effort 
to fight noxious weeds in the U.S. will receive a significant boost as 
this important facility is finally upgraded. Some people chuckle when 
they see a program to fight noxious weeds. But, I can assure my 
colleagues that this is no joke. If you have ever seen a crop overrun 
with these weeds, you would know that we need to continue our research 
efforts to come up with safe and effective means to fight them.
  The environment also benefits by this bill's continued funding for 
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. This is particularly 
important to farmers within the vast Colorado River Basin, who must 
shoulder much of the burden for minimizing agricultural runoff into the 
Colorado River. The Salinity Control program is good for farmers, good 
for the environment, and good for the fish species in the river.
  Also important to Utah agriculture, Mr. President, is the funding 
this bill provides to compensate farmers for losses due to the 
infestation of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets. For the last couple of 
years, farmers in Utah and other Western states have faced one of the 
largest infestations on record. I am very pleased that Congress has 
seen fit to provide these farmers with relief. You wouldn't think that 
these little insects could do so much damage, but they do. This funding 
is important to those in my state who have suffered terrible losses.
  Finally, Mr. President, I have often reminded my colleagues that Utah 
is the second driest state in the Union. Utah's farmers understand 
better than most that water equals life. For that reason, I am pleased 
that this bill will help to protect the Long Park Reservoir by 
providing technical and financial assistance to shoring up this 
important source of water.
  Mr. President, these are just a few of the programs funded by the 
conference report that will benefit Utah's farmers.
  I am also proud to say that I worked with Senator Cochran and Senator 
Durbin to increase the amount of funds available in FDA's Office of 
Generic Drugs. When generic drug applications languish at FDA, it is 
the public that loses, and these additional resources will be a needed 
shot in the arm. They will enable the FDA to process these applications 
more quickly and get generic drugs to consumers faster.
  This is a momentous piece of legislation, which is why I think it is 
unfortunate that it is being made a vehicle for an unrelated proposal 
that is poor policy and that would undoubtedly have been the subject of 
considerable debate should it have come to the floor as a free-standing 
bill.
  Mr. President, I must register my severe reservations about the drug 
importation provisions that have been inserted in the Agriculture 
appropriations conference report.
  I commend Senator Cochran for his attempts to improve some of the 
more egregious features of the controversial pharmaceutical importation 
provisions that have been slipped into this appropriations bill. But, 
these mitigation measures do not go far enough to correct what I 
consider the proposal's principal flaw.
  My first and foremost concern about this proposal is patient safety.
  I have been around here long enough to gauge momentum and count the 
votes. I know that the reimportation provisions have been wedged in a 
must-pass, year-end appropriations bill--one that forces me to choose 
between supporting a bill that does much to help Utahans and opposing a 
bill that contains one bad, albeit popular, idea.
  But before we adopt this reimportation measure, which has not been 
the subject of a committee mark-up in either the Senate or House, let's 
at least stop for a moment and think about the type of risk we are 
placing upon the American people.
  Although I do not see eye-to-eye with Congressman John Dingell on 
every, maybe even most, issues, I always respect his views. And, I 
recognize his many impressive efforts when he chaired the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee. In fact, 
it was the Dingell Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee's 
investigation into the foreign drug market that led to the enactment of 
the 1988 Prescription Drug Marketing Act. I was proud to help shepherd 
this legislation through the Senate.

  The good news is that the PDMA law helps prevent pharmaceuticals that 
are mislabeled, misbranded, improperly stored or shipped, beyond their 
shelf life, or even bald counterfeits from entering the United States 
from abroad.
  The bad news is that the legislation we are being asked to adopt 
today will unravel essential elements of the PDMA, which currently 
controls importation of pharmaceutical products into the United States.
  As the committee report accompanying the PDMA stated:

       (R)imported pharmaceuticals threaten the public health in 
     two ways. First, foreign counterfeits, falsely described as 
     reimported U.S. produced drugs, have entered the distribution 
     system. Second, proper storage and handling of legitimate 
     pharmaceuticals cannot be guaranteed by the U.S. law once the 
     drugs have left the boundaries of the United States.

  Congressman Dingell has also commented on the pending legislation. I 
am sad to say that this assessment may turn out to be prophetic. As my 
Democratic friend, Representative Dingell, succinctly summarized the 
situation: ``Make no mistake. This reckless legislation never went 
through the committees with expertise or experience in these matters. 
It is going to lead to needless injuries and death.''
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over 
counterfeiting, I am concerned that our members have not had an 
opportunity to make a careful study, in collaboration with the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, of the potential for this language to 
increase the flow of counterfeit drugs. The World Health Organization 
has issued several reports that have detailed the international scope 
of the counterfeit pharmaceuticals problem.
  Some might question how Congress could enact legislation that could 
endanger the health and safety of the American people. As I have argued 
previously on the floor of the Senate, even the best of intentions in 
trying to lower drug prices surely can't be adequate justification for 
sacrificing patient safety.
  I recommend a critical reading of the transcript the October 3, 2000, 
House Commerce Committee Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
hearing on the important issue. I think a fair appraisal of this 
transcript warrants a conclusion that FDA already has its hands full in 
the policing the relatively limited area of PDMA-permissible imports.
  Based on what we learned at the October 3 hearing, if Congress 
adopts, and the President signs into law, these new, greatly 
liberalized reimportation rules, it is difficult to see how the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Commissioner of Food and 
Drugs will be able to handle the tremendous responsibilities imposed 
upon them in this provision.

  One of the points that came out of the hearing during the testimony 
of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Dr. Jane Henney, is that there 
are at least 242 manufacturers spread across some 36 countries that 
appeared to have exported drug products to the United States but that 
did not have a current FDA inspection. This is like playing Russian 
roulette with the public health.
  At this same hearing, the Commissioner of Customs, Mr. Raymond Kelly, 
testified that there are some 301 ports of entry that must be watched 
by the Customs Service. And keep in mind that this is the situation 
under the current statutory framework where it is difficult to import 
drugs into the U.S. Imagine the catastrophic possibilities if we adopt 
a law that loosens the reigns on importation of drug products into the 
United States.
  The House hearing brought out the fact that it is not only 
manufacturing plants we need to worry about, but also repackaging 
facilities and bulk drug facilities as well as the various

[[Page S10687]]

warehousers and transporters of drug products. We must be concerned 
about how we can guarantee strict adherence with the general good 
manufacturing practices in overseas facilities that we have come to 
expect in the United States. These guidelines provide assurance as to 
the purity of pharmaceutical products.
  Basically the bill says, in effect, don't worry, the FDA will issue 
regulations that will solve all these problems.
  Maybe so. But if it was so easy for FDA to regulate these problems 
right out of existence then why are 10 former FDA Commissioners against 
this bill? I fear that in practice the drafting of these regulations 
will prove to be an extremely time-consuming and complex endeavor.
  And even if the regulations are promptly drafted, what assurance and 
expectation do we have that all of these foreign establishments will be 
respectful of the regulations of the United States Food and Drug 
Administration?
  If you don't believe me, get a copy of the transcript of the October 
3 hearing and read about what House Commerce Committee and FDA staff 
found in a recent trip to Chinese and Indian drug manufacturing 
facilities. Not only did this investigation help uncover that some 46 
Chinese firms and 11 Indian firms were exporting apparently misbranded 
drugs to the United States, there also appeared to be wholesale theft 
of U.S. intellectual property related to drug products.
  Yet instead of tightening the controls we have in place, we are 
unwisely, in the name of attempting to cut high drug costs, loosening 
them. Let me say it once again, it is no wonder why ten former FDA 
Commissioners have come out against these drug importation measures. In 
enacting this reimportation measure, we will have put in place a 
ticking time bomb on the public health front as well as creating a 
regulatory climate that can only encourage an assault on American 
intellectual property.

  While the public health shortcomings of the bill are chief among my 
concerns, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I do want to 
raise some troubling aspects of the reimportation provisions as they 
relate to intellectual property.
  In my view, it would have been preferable for the Judiciary 
Committees of both the House and Senate to have had an opportunity to 
carefully study the rapidly evolving language that was inserted into 
this appropriations bill.
  I share the legitimate concerns of all Members of Congress about the 
difficulties the many Americans, particularly our senior citizens, have 
in gaining access to affordable drugs.
  In fact, one of my chief concerns about the reimportation measure--
public safety, intellectual property, and trade policy concerns aside--
is whether consumers will get any substantial benefit when a new 
phalanx of middlemen get their piece of the action for bringing these 
drugs into the United States. I am not convinced that consumers will 
get much in the way of savings. And, what little benefit they get will 
come at what cost?
  I believe that the industry must give the American public and the 
Congress a better explanation to account for the discrepancies in some 
drug prices in the United States and in other countries. And, I call 
upon the industry to ensure that Americans are paying fair prices for 
pharmaceuticals and that citizens in other nations are also paying 
their fair share and not merely free riding on the substantial U.S. 
investment in biomedical research.
  We must be especially wary of price control regimes in other 
countries that may set prices at levels inadequate to reflect their 
citizens' fair share of the R&D costs. We must recognize, however, that 
what is a fair and affordable price in the United States may not be 
affordable in many developing nations. The differences in GDP of the 
developed and developing world have many dimensions, mostly negative.
  We must be mindful of the important fact that virtually every nation 
in the world has made a commitment, helped along by the leadership of 
the U.S., to attempt to create that rising tide that lifts all boats by 
adopting the GATT Treaty, which specifies the rules of international 
trade. The GATT TRIPS provisions consist of critical new legal 
protections for the intellectual property. It is intellectual property 
that undergirds the creation of so many new products, including 
pharmaceuticals.
  In our understandable short-term desire to help the developing world 
fight back against such infectious disease menaces as HIV, TB, and 
malaria, we must avoid acting, however unintentionally, to undermine 
the long-term interest in protecting the intellectual property rights 
of American inventors.
  That goes for our goals to develop new drug therapies benefiting 
Americans as well. For our own national interest, as well as the 
interests of our trading partners, particularly developing nations, we 
must use our influence to build respect for and protect the inventive 
energies citizens worldwide.

  I do not believe the reimportation provisions in this conference 
report advance the cause of intellectual property protection and, in 
fact, may have an unintended but unmistakable effect of retarding 
future drug development.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record at 
this point two letters that I wrote, one to Senator Lott and Speaker 
Hastert and one to Senators Cochran and Kohl, to object to both the 
process and substance of these provisions. In addition, House Judiciary 
Chairman Henry Hyde expressed similar concerns. I ask consent that his 
letter also be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered,
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATCH. As this correspondence indicates, I am particularly 
concerned by the so-called non-discrimination clause that suddenly 
materialized, almost out of the vapors, and was added to the conference 
report at the last moment.
  I would also note for the record that, prior to learning that such 
language was under development, I contacted Chairman Cochran and the 
majority leadership with a request that a rule of construction be added 
to these ill-advised importation provisions to the effect that the 
language be neutral with respect to intellectual property rights.
  Imagine my surprise and disappointment to find that not only was my 
modest proposal, which was consistent with every version of the bill 
that passed both the House and the Senate up to that point, not 
adopted, but, instead, all too discriminatory ``non-discrimination 
clause'' incorporated in its place.
  This provision states: ``No manufacturer of covered products may 
enter into a contract or agreement that includes a provision to prevent 
the sale or distribution of covered products imported pursuant to 
subsection (a).'' Make no mistake that this clause appears to take 
direct aim on some of the most traditional of American commercial 
rights such as freedom to contract and the freedom to license patent 
rights.
  In the United States, manufacturers have great leeway in selling 
their goods. For example, in its 1919 decision, United States v. 
Colgate & Co., the Supreme Court noted it is a ``long recognized right 
of [a] trader or manufacturer to exercise his own independent 
discretion as to parties with whom he will deal.'' Moreover, this right 
is particularly strong when the seller holds patent rights which are 
derived directly from Article I of the Constitution.
  As the language is scrutinized, I hear more and more questions being 
raised about the potential conflict of these provisions with current 
law.

  Mr. President, in some respects, this non-discrimination clause is a 
major assault on intellectual property rights. It hardly sends a strong 
signal to our knowledge-based industries that form the backbone of the 
new high-technology economy.
  I serve on the Finance Committee where we had jurisdiction over trade 
matters. While at the point I have reached no final answers or 
conclusions about how the non-discrimination clause comports with the 
TRIPS provisions, I can tell you that I have a lot of questions. And I 
can tell you that we would be better off if, before we adopt this 
language, we took the time to work through some of the tough questions 
that this highly controversial clause raises with, for example, Article

[[Page S10688]]

28 of TRIPS. Neither the Finance Committee nor the Ways and Means 
Committee will have a meaningful opportunity to examine the trade 
implication of this language.
  I can only hope that this language does not result in the importation 
of sub-standard and unsafe drugs along with a back door system of price 
controls. Wisely, this body has always resisted direct government price 
controls on high-technology products like pharmaceuticals. We stand 
today as the world's leader in pharmaceutical innovation. Let's hope 
that this bill does not undermine this achievement.
  Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that we need to work together to 
make drugs more affordable for the American public--all of those in 
Congress with expertise in the policy areas that contribute to 
addressing this issue should be collaborating on a solution to high 
drug prices. This is not a simple matter, and a solution that looks 
simple and obvious could easily prove disastrous to both consumers and 
the research enterprise.
  We must tackle this issue in a manner that doesn't threaten public 
safety, undermine the incentives for developing new intellectual 
property, and otherwise adversely affects U.S. trade interests. 
Frankly, I am concerned that these reimportation provisions, however 
well-intentioned, will not be able to met these tests.
  I will support this conference report, even though I have very 
serious concerns about the provisions on pharmaceutical reimportation. 
I hope to work with my colleagues on all the relevant committees in the 
House and Senate on these many issues concerning pharmaceuticals and 
their importation into our country.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture,
     Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joe Skeen,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture,
     Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Trent, Denny, Thad, and Joe: This is to register my 
     strong objection to the so-called ``non-discrimination'' 
     amendment that Representative Henry Waxman and others are 
     trying to insert into the pharmaceutical importation 
     provisions in the Agriculture Appropriations Conference 
     Report. This language would affect both intellectual property 
     and contract rights and raises constitutional questions. As 
     Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe it is 
     imperative that you reject these ill-advised, eleventh hour 
     provisions that relate to critical intellectual property 
     rights that have not been considered by either the House or 
     the Senate Judiciary Committees.
       Although styled as a ``non-discrimination'' provision, this 
     language is a thinly disguised attack on intellectual 
     property protection in the United States that conflicts with 
     longstanding U.S. policy, would set a dangerous precedent for 
     all U.S. businesses, and would undermine bipartisan U.S. 
     trade and intellectual property negotiating objectives 
     abroad. Proponents of this language would deny pharmaceutical 
     manufacturers their freedom in private contracting, and 
     appears to compel them to sell unlimited quantities of their 
     prescription medicines to foreign buyers, including unknown 
     foreign entities lacking any interest in the safety and 
     health of American patients who rely on the safety and 
     effectiveness of prescription medicines. This proposal has 
     not been the subject of a single hearing, let alone a 
     committee mark-up, and is unquestionably within the 
     jurisdiction of the House or Senate Judiciary Committees, 
     neither of which has been consulted on this controversial 
     measure. I urge you to reject it.
       My responsibilities as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee require me to oppose this sneak attack on 
     intellectual property protection and U.S. leadership in 
     innovation benefiting consumers. My responsibilities to my 
     Utah constituents and the American people generally impel me 
     further to object to the adoption of the prescription drug 
     import proposal on safety grounds. I am greatly disturbed to 
     learn that Conferees are apparently considering lowering the 
     traditional gold-standard of ``safety and efficacy'' to a 
     new, untested, and disturbingly ambiguous standard of 
     ``reasonable assurance'' of safety and efficacy. The Senate 
     passed the Cochran-Kohl amendment 96-0 precisely to seek to 
     ensure that risks to American patients are not increased 
     through re-importation of prescription medicines.
       In direct contradiction to these efforts, the ``non-
     discrimination'' measure clearly and unacceptably increases 
     such risks. This measure would place domestic medicine 
     supplies in jeopardy by forcing our manufacturers to sell 
     unlimited quantities abroad. It also would prevent them from 
     exercising sound business judgment about to whom to sell, 
     forcing them to sell drug products to anyone--even 
     unscrupulous shady dealers. In conjunction with a price 
     control system of a foreign nation, this ``non-
     discrimination'' regime is tantamount to a compulsory 
     licensing system that can only undermine the incentives 
     required for the private sector to make the necessary 
     substantial investment to invent new medicines. In order to 
     protect the safety and health of American patients, advance 
     our Nation's trade policy, and promote the development of the 
     next generation of medicines, this proposal must be rejected.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I understand that the situation on the 
     drug import provisions in the Agriculture Appropriations bill 
     is fluid and that now there is language being proposed that 
     modifies the House proposed text that I have previously 
     criticized. Unfortunately, I must register my objection to 
     this new language as well.
       It is my understanding that the new language states: ``No 
     manufacturer of a covered product may enter into a contract 
     or agreement that includes a provision to prevent the sale or 
     distribution of covered products.'' How can this restrictive 
     provision square with such basic American concepts of private 
     property and freedom to contract? It seems to me that 
     Congress, like the courts, should not get into the business 
     of rewriting contracts.
       In my view this new ``compromise'' provision does not 
     escape the fundamental problems presented by the earlier 
     House language because a flat prohibition on the ability of a 
     manufacturer to limit the future sale or distribution of 
     pharmaceutical products flies in the face of current law and 
     policy. I must report to you that as this language circulates 
     among the bar, reputable attorneys are concluding that it 
     presents serious constitutional issues. As Chairman of the 
     Judiciary Committee, I believe it wise for our committee to 
     consider this issue before such language is enacted. Given 
     the fact that the import provisions will not go into effect 
     until the FDA issues a complex set of safety testing 
     regulations, I see no need why the Congress must rush in the 
     last few days of the session to include this new provision. I 
     know that my House counterpart, Chairman Henry Hyde, has 
     raised similar objections with Speaker Hastert.
       So I must once again add to my concerns about the potential 
     negative public health aspects of the pharmaceutical import 
     amendments, a separate objection concerning the erosion of 
     intellectual property and contract rights. I urge you to 
     oppose these measures until these issues can be carefully 
     reviewed and debated.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: As Chairman of the House Judiciary 
     Committee, I urge you to reject intellectual property 
     provisions, disguised as a ``non-discrimination'' 
     requirement, advocated by Mr. Waxman for inclusion in the 
     drug re-importation measures in the Agriculture 
     appropriations bill or in other legislation. The Waxman 
     gambit is an anti-business, anti-intellectual property effort 
     to force pharmaceutical patent owners to give up their patent 
     rights with respect to re-importation into the U.S. of their 
     patented product, by denying their freedom in contracting. 
     Mr. Waxman further wants to compel drug manufacturers to sell 
     unlimited quantities of their prescription medicines to 
     foreign buyers, including unknown, fly-by-night operations 
     that are unlikely to be held accountable for patient health 
     and safety. This proposal has not been the subject of a 
     single hearing and falls squarely within the jurisdiction of 
     the House Judiciary Committee, whose members have not been 
     consulted on this.
       Beyond the serious jurisdictional issue and erosion of 
     intellectual property rights, I further object to the Waxman 
     proposal because it clearly increases risks to the health and 
     safety of American patients. This measure would place 
     domestic medicine supplies in jeopardy by forcing 
     manufacturers to sell unlimited quantities abroad. It also 
     would prevent them from exercising sound business judgment 
     about to whom to sell, forcing them to sell to unscrupulous 
     shady dealers and fast-buck artists abroad. For these 
     reasons, I urge you to reject these measures.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report, which we will vote on 
today. This bill contains over $78 billion in

[[Page S10689]]

funding (and more than $3.5 billion in emergency assistance for 
farmers). And it contains important initiatives I have been pushing--
doubling the payment limit for LDPs (from $75,000 to $150,000) and 
lifting embargoes on food and medicine.
  I extend my sincere gratitude to the Chairman of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Committee, my friend from Mississippi, who has crafted a 
bill that gives America's farmers the assistance they need in the short 
term--and keeps a promise we made to open more markets in which to sell 
their products overseas.
  This bill culminates an almost 2-year effort on my part to open 
overseas markets to American farmers by ending U.S. food and medicine 
embargoes. We talk a lot about foreign trade barriers, and rightly so. 
We must continue to be vigilant to remove those barriers, such as the 
EU ban on U.S. beef. However, it is hypocritical of the U.S. government 
to target foreign barriers without removing our own barriers. That's 
exactly what food embargoes are--U.S. barriers against U.S. farmers. A 
policy shift in this area is long overdue, and I am pleased that this 
Conference Report reflects that shift. While the final product before 
us is not perfect, it does change substantially U.S. policy on 
embargoes of agriculture and medicine.
  We know that sanctions hurt farmers. The currently-embargoed market 
for our food products is estimated by some at about $6 billion. Cuba 
alone could purchase about $1.6 billion worth of food and medicine each 
year. Jim Guest, the President of the Missouri Pork Producers said: 
``With 11 million people who enjoy pork, Cuba will become an important 
U.S. pork export market. In 1998, the last year for which statistics 
are available, Cuba imported about 10,000 metric tons of pork from 
Canada, Mexico and the European Union.''
  This sanctions reform proposal covers more countries than just Cuba. 
There are four other countries affected by this legislation that could 
present substantial opportunities for U.S. producers of wheat, 
soybeans, beef, corn, etc.
  Furthermore, this provision reforms sanctions policy for the future. 
The President will not be able to impose new sanctions without 
Congressional involvement.
  Food embargo reform can be summed up as a big ``win'': a win to the 
U.S. economy, a win for U.S. jobs, a win in foreign policy, and a win 
for those hungry and hurting in foreign countries.
  My goal that I set out to reach years ago--giving the U.S. the 
opportunity to export more food and medicine--has been achieved in the 
bill we are voting on today. The Food and Medicine for the World Act, 
which I introduced in 1999, and which is the basis for the agreement in 
this Ag. Approps. Conference Report, separates out food and medicine 
from all other products when it comes to sanctions policy.

  Current embargos against agriculture and medicine will be lifted, and 
there will be no embargoes in the future unless the President first 
receives Congressional approval. This proposal of mine has remained in 
place throughout the Senate and House negotiations. It is the 
underlying basis for real sanctions reform because it does not focus on 
any one country. Instead, it is a new framework for U.S. policy in 
general. The differences between my original proposal and this final 
agreement are merely details on HOW the exports of food and medicine 
will be facilitated. We made progress in some areas, and in others, we 
must monitor the effectiveness toward reaching our goal.
  Let me explain briefly those differences. On the issue of how the 
exports will be allowed, there are two things I would like to cover--
licensing and financing.
  On licensing--we have gone much further than the Administration plan 
put in place last year, which has two substantial limitations. First, 
the Administration plan requires case-by-case licensing, whereas, the 
language before us in the Conference Report ensures that a least 
restrictive licensing system is set up--to cover a 2 year span instead 
of being case-by-case. Second, current U.S. policy requires tight 
restrictions on the end recipient of the food (those to whom we could 
sell our farm products). However, the bill we are voting on today 
allows exporters to sell to countries broadly, whoever wants to buy 
their products.
  On financing--all sales to these countries can be freely financed by 
U.S. banks, but the House added a restriction that will prohibit U.S. 
banks from being the primary financial institution in any sales to 
Cuba. U.S. banks will be able to facilitate transactions, but they 
won't be allowed to assume the risk of the Cuban buyers. While this 
policy is not my preference, I will point out that it is not a step 
backward. It simply keeps in place the current restrictions that exist 
in U.S. law.
  One final note on financing, particularly U.S. government financing--
under the bill before us, U.S. government credits will be available to 
help finance exports of agricultural products if the President 
determines that it is in the humanitarian or national security interest 
to extend the credits.
  All along, I have been committed to real sanctions reform in a final 
bill--and that is what we have accomplished. As with any major reform 
of U.S. policy, our proposal may not be perfect, but we can address any 
roadblocks that arise when they are brought to our attention by the 
farming community and humanitarian organizations.
  I welcome the recognition by a sizable majority of Congress that the 
time has come to reform this nation's obsolete and hurtful policy that 
allows using food and medicine in embargoes. And I look forward to 
sending this embargo reform bill to the President's desk so America's 
farmers are given increased freedom to market.
  Mr. President, I would like to insert in the Record a letter 
addressed to me from Charlie Kruse, the President of the Missouri Farm 
Bureau. Also, I would like to insert a statement from the Missouri Pork 
Producers. Finally, I would like to insert a letter signed by 15 
agriculture organizations supporting this sanctions reform proposal and 
the Conference Report. Let me just say that this effort--reforming our 
nation's policy on food embargoes--has been a cooperative effort. The 
farm organizations that have signed these letters have shown tremendous 
leadership in getting us where we are today. I extend my sincere 
appreciation for their support throughout this entire process.
  I would like to address one final point, Mr. President, with regard 
to the intent of those that have drafted this sanctions reform 
proposal. Senator Hagel and I, as the drafters of the underlying 
sanctions reform bill, are submitting a statement of intent on how this 
proposal should be implemented by the Administration. I ask for 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my 
statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act--Intent of Senate 
                                Sponsors


                        Brief Procedural History

       A reduction in the amount of agricultural exports and a 
     decline in commodity prices have led to renewed efforts by 
     farm groups and agribusiness firms to win a change in U.S. 
     sanctions policy. While there has been some easing of these 
     sanctions through executive order, agricultural exporters 
     have sought legislation to exempt their products from 
     embargoes to ensure that any positive changes in policies are 
     not reversed based on changing events or a change of 
     Administration.
       Title IX of the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations 
     Conference Report, the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
     Enhancement Act,'' contains sanctions reform for agricultural 
     products, medicine, and medical devices.
       The language in this act can be traced back to the ``Food 
     and Medicine for the World Act,'' (originally, S. 425 and S. 
     1771, both introduced in 1999). The text of the ``Food and 
     Medicine for the World Act'' was offered as an amendment to 
     the FY2000 Agriculture Appropriations Bill (S. 1233), on 
     August 4, 1999, by Senator Ashcroft and Senators Hagel, 
     Baucus, Kerrey, Dodd, Brownback and 15 other cosponsors. The 
     Senate defeated a motion to table, 70 to 28, and the 
     amendment, after modifications, was accepted by voice vote. 
     There was not a comparable provision in the House 
     appropriations bill, and ultimately the embargo provisions 
     were deleted from the conference agreement, at the request of 
     House leadership.
       In March 2000, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held 
     a marked up of S. 1771, the ``Food and Medicine for the World 
     Act.'' During the mark up, the title was changed to the 
     current title, ``Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
     Enhancement Act.''
       The provision, as marked up by the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee, was then offered as an amendment to the FY2001 
     Agriculture Appropriations Bills (H.R. 4461; S. 2536) in both 
     the Senate and House during

[[Page S10690]]

     Appropriations Committee markups. When the Senate passed S. 
     2536, the FY01 Agriculture Appropriations bill on July 20, 
     2000, it contained the sanctions exemption language that had 
     been inserted during committee consideration. The House 
     language was accepted in the House Agriculture Appropriations 
     Subcommittee, but later deleted on the House floor on July 
     11, 2000, as a result of a point of order that the amendment 
     was an instance of legislating on a spending bill.
       A compromise reached between amendment supporters and 
     opponents regarding the application of the exemption to Cuba 
     served as the House leadership's position in conference, and 
     was eventually accepted by House and Senate Republicans. The 
     language of S. 1771 that lifts sanctions and restricts the 
     future use of sanctions was maintained. However, the language 
     on licensing and credits was altered (see explanation below). 
     Furthermore, the House leadership added language regarding 
     travel to Cuba that has the effect of codifying the current 
     regulations that restrict travel.


                                Purpose

       The overall purpose of this title is clear: to eliminate 
     unilateral food and medicine sanctions and to establish new 
     procedures for the future consideration of such sanctions. In 
     drafting this provision, the intent of the authors is to 
     expand export opportunities for United States agricultural 
     and medical products beyond that currently provided for in 
     law and regulations. As the original sponsors of this 
     provision, we would like to outline briefly what we believe 
     the intent of this provision to be, in order to ensure that 
     agencies that will implement this legislation fully 
     appreciate the expectations of the sponsors. We expect that 
     regulations to implement this provision will promptly 
     liberalize the current administrative procedures for the 
     export of agriculture and medicine. A section by section 
     explanation follows:


                           Section 901--Title

       This section contains the title of the Act, the ``Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act.''


                        Section 902--Definitions

       Definitions in the section are broadly drawn to allow 
     maximum benefit to exporters of agricultural commodities and 
     medicine and medical products.
       Agriculture Commodities: The drafters used the definition 
     of ``agricultural commodities'' in the Agricultural Trade Act 
     (7 U.S.C. Sec. 5602) because of its inclusiveness. It 
     includes all food commodities, feed, fish, and livestock, as 
     well as fiber. Also, for all of these items, the definition 
     includes ``the products thereof.'' Therefore, it is the 
     drafters intent to cover all value-added products and 
     processed products that include food, feed, fish, livestock, 
     and fiber. In addition, value added products and processed 
     products are covered even if they contain some inputs that 
     are not of U.S. origin. Note: The drafters specifically chose 
     not to use another definition in U.S. law that requires all 
     of the inputs to these processed foods be of U.S. origin, 7 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1732. For purposes of administering Title IX of 
     this Act, Section 775 of the Conference Report clarifies that 
     the term ``agricultural commodity'' shall also include 
     fertilizer and organic fertilizer.
       Agricultural Program: The intent of the bill is to lift 
     sanctions on commercial sales, as well as sanctions on the 
     use of federal programs that are used to facilitate the 
     export of agricultural products.
       Medical Device and Medicine: These terms should be 
     interpreted broadly to mean all products commonly understood 
     to be within these categories, as explicitly recognized by 
     the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and including 
     supplies, such as but not limited to, crutches, bandages, 
     wheelchairs, etc.


                        Section 903--Restriction

       This section requires the President to terminate all 
     unilateral agricultural and medical sanctions that are in 
     effect as of the date of enactment (though Section 911 
     provides a 120 day waiting period to allow the implementation 
     of appropriate regulations). Therefore, 120 days after the 
     enactment of the bill, U.S. exporters should be allowed to 
     sell any agricultural commodity, medicine, or medical 
     device without restrictions to all countries, as well as 
     to participate in any activities related to the sale of 
     those products (subject only to the exceptions in Sec. 
     904, the licensing requirements of Sec. 906, and the 
     applicable credit limitations of Sec. 908).
       This section also prohibits the President from imposing any 
     new unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions without the 
     concurrence of Congress in the form of a joint resolution. If 
     the President imposes broad unilateral sanctions in the 
     future that may or may not be a complete embargo, the 
     President must exempt agriculture and medicine from the broad 
     sanctions and treat these products differently. While his 
     powers to declare national emergencies and impose sanctions 
     are maintained as they relate to other U.S. products, that 
     power will no longer apply in relation to the export of 
     agriculture and medical products. The correct procedure under 
     this Act will require Congressional approval unless Sec. 904 
     is applicable.


                        Section 904--Exceptions

       This section provides a number of exceptions to Section 903 
     to ensure that the Administration, in certain limited 
     instances, has the ability to impose sanctions in certain 
     instances. While seven particular exceptions are provided, 
     they are narrowly drawn in recognition of the conferees' 
     expectation that food and medicine sanctions should only be 
     used in extraordinary circumstances. Further, these 
     exceptions should not be used to impose sanctions permanently 
     as Section 905 makes clear. It is the intent of the drafters 
     that these exceptions be narrow. Therefore, if a question 
     exists as to whether the proposed sanctions might fall under 
     one of the exceptions (for instance whether there are 
     ``hostilities''), it is the desire of the drafters that the 
     President comply with Sec. 903 and seek Congressional 
     approval. It is the intent of the drafters that the President 
     not to use these exceptions liberally for to do so would 
     frustrate the purpose of the bill--to ensure that sanctions 
     on agriculture and medicine are used only when it is in the 
     national security interest of the Untied States to do so.
       Specifically with regard to paragraph (2), it is the intent 
     of the drafters that this provision cover only dual-use 
     items. This provision should be narrowly interpreted so as to 
     allow as many exports as possible--keeping in mind that the 
     products being considered for export are humanitarian 
     products that can feed, clothe, and heal people.


                 Section 905--Termination of Sanctions

       This section provides for a sunset of any food or medicine 
     sanctions imposed under Section 903, not later than 2 years 
     after the date the sanction becomes effective. Sanctions may 
     be maintained only if the President recommends to Congress a 
     continuation for not more than 2 years, and a joint 
     resolution is enacted in support of this recommendation.


         Section 906--State Sponsors of International Terrorism

       This section requires licenses for the export of 
     agricultural commodities, medicine or medical devices to Cuba 
     and to countries that are state sponsors of international 
     terrorism.
       These licenses shall be provided for a period of not less 
     that 12 months. However, the sales of products under the 
     license can span 24 months so that the exporter is able to 
     ship products for 12 months after the license has expired as 
     long as the contract was entered into during the initial 12 
     month period. This provision gives exporters flexibility to 
     ship for 24 months as long as the contracts are entered into 
     during the first 12 months.
       The intent of the bill is for the Administration to develop 
     a licensing system that is, to the extent possible, the least 
     restrictive, least burdensome for the exporter. This section 
     does not give the Administration the authority to put in 
     place a case-by-case licensing system. The Administration 
     must put in place a system for agricultural commodities, 
     medicine, and medical devices that is no more restrictive 
     than license exceptions administered by the Department of 
     Commerce or general licenses administered by the Department 
     of Treasury. It is the expectation of the sponsors that a 
     presumption in favor of sales will to exporters, consistent 
     with the purpose of the act--to support enhanced exports.
       Consistent with this expectation, it is the understanding 
     of the authors that the Department of Commerce would be the 
     lead agency for all exports under this title.
       Furthermore, any licensing of activities related to the 
     sale or export of products covered by this Act should be 
     under a licensing system that is the least restrictive 
     possible. In the case of exports to Cuba, it is the 
     understanding of the drafters that current restrictions on 
     shipping to Cuba will continue to be waived for licensed 
     exports.
       Exports to the Government of Syria and the Government of 
     North Korea are excepted from the licensing requirements of 
     this section. While the provision mentions an exception only 
     for sales to the ``governments'' of these countries, the 
     Senate recognizes this as a drafting error and would 
     encourage the Administration to except sales to the private 
     sector in those countries as well. It would be inconsistent 
     policy to lift licensing requirements to the governments 
     while not lifting them for the private sector buyers in these 
     countries.
       This section also requires that procedures be in place to 
     deny exports to any entity within such country that engages 
     in the promotion of international terrorism. This language is 
     intended to give the Administration very narrow discretion in 
     the granting of licenses for exports to specific sub-entities 
     that are directly involved in the promotion of terrorism.
       Finally, this section requires quarterly and biennial 
     reports on these licensing activities to determine the 
     effectiveness of licensing arrangements. The drafters 
     encourage the Administration to work closely with the U.S. 
     private sector to establish licensing procedures and to 
     determine the effectiveness of the procedures.


                 Section 907--Congressional Procedures

       This section requires that a report submitted by the 
     President under Section 903 or Section 905 shall be submitted 
     to the appropriate committee or committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate. A joint resolution in support 
     of this report may not be reported before the eighth session 
     day of Congress after the introduction of the joint 
     resolution.

[[Page S10691]]

   Section 908--Prohibition on United States Assistance and Financing

       Section 908(a)(1) prohibits the use of United States 
     government assistance and financing for exports to Cuba. 
     However, consistent with the overall intent of the measure, 
     this prohibition is not intended to modify any provision of 
     law allowing assistance to Cuba.
       The provision also restricts the use of government 
     assistance for commercial exports to Iran, Libya, North 
     Korea, and Sudan, unless the President waives the 
     restrictions for national security or humanitarian 
     reasons. In recent months, the Administration has taken 
     several steps to liberalize these and other restrictions 
     on agricultural trade with Iran, Libya, North Korea, and 
     Sudan. As such, we believe it will be in the best interest 
     of U.S. agricultural producers, as well as for the United 
     States' balance of trade, for the President to use the 
     waiver authority in subsection (a)(3) to promptly waive 
     these restrictions before the current sanctions are lifted 
     (120 days after enactment of this bill). If the 
     President's waiver authority is not promptly exercised, 
     the restrictions in subsection (a)(1) could act to 
     restrict exports of agricultural commodities, medicines, 
     and medical devices to these countries to a greater extent 
     than current law. This is certainly not the intent of this 
     legislation.
       Specifically with regard to Cuba, subsection (b) of section 
     908 prohibits any United States person from financing U.S. 
     agricultural exports to Cuba. However, in order to 
     accommodate sales of agricultural commodities to Cuba, 
     subsection (b) specifically authorizes Cuban buyers to pay 
     U.S. sellers with cash in advance, or to utilize financing 
     through third country financial institutions.
       While they cannot extend financing to Cuban buyers, U.S. 
     financial institutions are specifically authorized to confirm 
     or advise letters of credit related to the sale that are 
     issued by third country financial institutions. Under this 
     procedure, third country financial institutions can manage 
     the Cuban risk associated with these transactions. In turn, 
     the third country financial institution issues a letter of 
     credit free to be confirmed by a U.S. bank, which assumes no 
     Cuban risk. This provision, which creates a ``firewall'' 
     against ``sanctioned-country risk,'' is consistent with the 
     role played by third country banks in transactions with some 
     other countries subject to U.S. sanctions.
       U.S. financial institutions may act as exporters' 
     collection and payment agents, confirm third country letters 
     of credit, and guarantee payments to the U.S. exporters. The 
     provision of such export-related financial services by U.S. 
     financial institutions (commercial banks, cooperatives, and 
     others) will allow U.S. farmers, their cooperatives, and 
     exporters to be assured that they will be paid for exported 
     commodities.
       Subsection (b)(3) of section 908 requires the President to 
     issue regulations that are necessary to carry out this 
     section. In addition to waiving the restrictions on 
     assistance as appropriate under subsection (a)(3), these 
     regulations need to facilitate the export of agricultural 
     commodities, medicine, and medical devices. In particular, 
     the regulations need to accommodate these specifically 
     authorized exports by waiving the restrictions with respect 
     to vessels engaged in trade with Cuba found at 31 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 515.207.


        Section 909--Prohibition on Additional Imports from Cuba

       Section 909 reiterates that this Act does not change 
     current regulations that prohibit entry into the United 
     States of any merchandise that is of Cuban origin, has been 
     transported through Cuba, or is derived from any article 
     produced in Cuba. Despite the title of Sec. 909, the actual 
     language of Sec. 909 does not codify the currently regulatory 
     restrictions. Instead, the language simply states that Sec. 
     909 does not affect regulations found at 31 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 515.204.


     Section 910--Requirements Relating to Certain Travel-Related 
                         Transactions With Cuba

       This section requires the Secretary of Treasury to 
     promulgate regulations to authorize travel to, from, or 
     within Cuba for the ``authorized'' commercial sale of 
     agricultural commodities. The sponsors of this measure 
     believe that this section should be interpreted in a manner 
     that expands travel currently allowed under the regulations 
     in keeping with the overall Act's purpose of expanding 
     ``authorized'' exports.


                      Section 911--Effective Date

       This title shall take effect on the date of enactment and 
     apply thereafter in any fiscal year. The bill does not expire 
     with the expiration of the FY01 Appropriations bill. 
     Unilateral agricultural or medical sanctions in effect as of 
     the date of enactment shall be lifted 120 days after 
     enactment.
                                  ____



                              Missouri Farm Bureau Federation,

                             Jefferson City, MO, October 18, 2000.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: We are very pleased the U.S. Senate 
     will soon vote on the Conference Report for the fiscal year 
     2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Missouri Farm Bureau, 
     the state's largest general farm organization, strongly 
     support this legislation. In fact, we have been hoping for 
     this day ever since you introduced the Food and Medicine for 
     the World Act in 1999.
       We are grateful for the leadership shown by you and your 
     staff regarding the lifting of unilateral trade sanctions for 
     food and medicine. This measure will result in access to 
     markets that have long been closed to our nation's farmers 
     and ranchers. Frankly, it couldn't come at a better time; the 
     combination of continued low commodity prices and increased 
     fuel and interest expenses are having a devastating effect on 
     both producers and rural communities.
       As you know, we recently hosted Fernando Remirez De 
     Estenoz, the First Deputy Minister and Chief of the Cuban 
     Interests Section in Washington, DC, on a series of farm 
     visits in southeast Missouri. During the visit, Ambassador 
     Remirez made it clear that Cuba could provide a significant 
     new market for U.S. agricultural products. The high quality 
     of our production, coupled with favorable transportation 
     rates, makes the U.S. extremely competitive in the Cuban 
     market.
       It has become clear that food must not be used as a weapon. 
     Unilaterally denying U.S. agricultural producers access to 
     foreign markets simply does not work in a global economy.
       Again, we applaud your on-going leadership on this issue 
     and believe it to be something that will provide long-term 
     benefits to our nation's agricultural producers.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Charles E. Kruse,
     President.
                                  ____



                 Pork producers thank Senator Ashcroft

       Missouri Pork Producers President Jim Guest today commended 
     Senator John Ashcroft for his work in drafting language that 
     opens the door to potential U.S. pork exports to Cuba.
       ``Senator Ashcroft has been a leader in the effort to 
     reform outdated sanctions policies that harm American farm 
     families,'' Guest said. Senator Ashcroft's determination has 
     helped create an environment where Missouri pork producers 
     will have the opportunity to compete for business in Cuba for 
     the first time in 40 years.''
       Senator Ashcroft authored a sanctions reform provision that 
     was far reaching in its scope and which passed the Senate. 
     The Agriculture Appropriations Conference Agreement includes 
     compromise language to allow the sale of food and medicine to 
     Cuba and four other previously sanctioned nations. On October 
     11, the bill was overwhelmingly approved in the House and the 
     bill is pending in the Senate. President Clinton has said he 
     will sign the bill.
       ``Senator Ashcroft's vision has brought us to the point 
     where we can begin to think of Cuba as a potential customer 
     and that is a tremendous achievement,'' Guest said. ``With 11 
     million people who enjoy pork, Cuba will become an important 
     U.S. pork export market.''
       The Missouri Pork Producers has supported easing the trade 
     embargo with Cuba, and ending the practice of using food and 
     medicine as foreign policy tools. In 1998, the last year for 
     which statistics are available, Cuba imported about 10,000 
     metric tons of pork from Canada, Mexico and the European 
     Union.
                                  ____

                                                 October 10, 2000.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: The undersigned organizations urge 
     you to support passage of H.R. 4461, the FY01 agriculture 
     spending bill.
       In addition to funding important USDA food safety, 
     agricultural research and trade enhancing programs, the 
     legislation is critically important to farmers and ranchers 
     because it includes:
       $3.5 billion of critically needed emergency assistance for 
     agricultural producers hurt by this year's poor weather 
     conditions;
       Sanctions reform to lift the embargo on food and medicine 
     to Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea and Sudan. In addition, the 
     language makes it much more difficult for future presidents 
     to impose unilateral sanctions;
       Doubling of the Loan Deficiency Payment/Marketing Loan Gain 
     payment cap from $75,000 to $150,000 for one year; and
       This bill is critically important to the ability of our 
     producers to prosper in the future. We urge your support.
           Sincerely,
     American Farm Bureau Federation
     American Soybean Association
     National Association of Wheat Growers
     National Barley Growers Association
     National Cattlemen's Beef Association
     National Corn Growers Association
     National Cotton Council
     National Milk Producers Federation
     National Sunflower Association
     Rice Millers' Association
     U.S. Canola Association
     U.S. Durum Growers Association
     U.S. Rice Producers Association
     U.S. Rice Producers' Group
     Wheat Export Trade Education Committee

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss the Fiscal 
Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations conference report, H.R. 4461.
  First, I would like to commend Senators Cochran and Kohl, the Senate 
Subcommittee chairman and ranking member. They have put together a very 
good underlying bill and have done so with bipartisan support and 
cooperation. From the very first hearing of the

[[Page S10692]]

year, through conference, Chairman Cochran has endeavored to deliver a 
bill that is helpful to our farmers and ranchers and fair to the Food 
and Drug Administration. Again, I congratulate him on this important 
accomplishment.
  I was a conferee on this bill, as I am a member of the Senate 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. However, I regret to say that 
I was unable to sign the conference report because of specific 
provisions on Cuba sanctions and prescription drug re-importation.
  Specifically, I am distressed that the conferees did not support the 
Senate position on lifting food and medicine sanctions against Cuba. 
The House language limiting U.S. sales to a cash only or third-country 
financing basis will unnecessarily restrict the sales of food and 
medicine to Cuba.
  I am further troubled by the language restricting travel by Americans 
to Cuba. During the Cold War, Americans were able to travel to the 
Soviet bloc countries, and if they were kept out, it was by the 
Communists, not by our own government. I believe Castro has more to 
fear from an invasion force of American tourists than from our 
sanctions policy. I cannot imagine how restricting the ability of 
Americans to go to Cuba could possibly advance our shared goal of 
peaceful change toward democracy and a free market economy in Cuba.
  With regard to prescription drug re-importation, too many Americans 
struggle to afford prescription drugs that their doctors believe are 
necessary to alleviate or prevent illness. Unfortunately, those who can 
least afford these drugs because they do not have insurance coverage 
for prescription drugs generally pay far more than the ``most favored'' 
purchasers such as Health Maintenance Organizations, HMOs, and other 
big insurers.
  Instead of dealing with the real issue of providing comprehensive, 
affordable drug coverage to all America's seniors and the disabled, 
this conference report takes a much more limited step. It is billed as 
a means to provide our constituents with access to better priced 
medicines by allowing for the re-importation of drugs sold at lower 
prices in other countries. This provision includes measures to ensure 
the safety of these re-imported products by requiring testing after re-
importation. However, the language attached to this conference report 
still includes several pharmaceutical industry-backed loopholes that 
will undermine consumer ability to access cheaper drugs. These 
loopholes were added late in the process and have the potential to 
nullify the entire provision.
  Drug companies will be able to limit supplies in foreign countries to 
thwart re-importation efforts. Nothing in the language of this 
conference report addresses this issue. In fact, the limitation on the 
countries from which wholesalers and pharmacists may re-import drugs 
will clearly aggravate this loophole. The language also omits 
provisions that would prevent the pharmaceutical industry from forcing 
foreign wholesalers to sell products at the inflated American price. 
Without such a provision, the drug industry will be able to prevent 
U.S. consumers from obtaining more affordable medicines. There is no 
effort to focus re-importation so as to benefit the most severely 
disadvantaged Americans: the elderly and the disabled.
  I am convinced that Congress needs to address prescription drug 
coverage and the cost of pharmaceutical products here at home. Tortuous 
transport through other countries to re-import products that were 
originally manufactured here in the U.S. is not the most effective 
remedy for the high prices that American consumers pay today.
  Mr. President, I would like to note with appreciation that this 
conference report includes important assistance for our nation's 
farmers who are facing another year of low prices.
  The assistance farmers received last year helped many Illinois 
farmers. An October 1999 study by the University of Illinois projected 
that average net farm income for Illinois farmers would have been just 
$11,000 in 1999 without federal assistance. But with federal 
assistance, their income rose to $25,000.
  Although the U.S. economy continues to thrive, farmers and those who 
live in rural America do not appear to be reaping the benefits. This 
measure provides $3.6 billion for weather-related crop losses and 
livestock assistance, and it increases funding for the Farm Service 
Agency to carry out vital farm programs and emergency measures. The 
conference report also doubles the loan deficiency limits to ensure 
farmers are able to receive the income support they need.
  The conference report also contains $1 billion for P.L. 480--Food for 
Peace, $697 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $2.5 
billion for USDA Rural Development programs, $9.5 billion for child 
nutrition programs--including a School Breakfast pilot program, and 
$1.2 billion for the Food and Drug Administration.
  Mr. President, although I have some serious reservations with regard 
to Cuba sanctions and prescription drug re-importation, I am voting for 
this conference report because of its other valuable provisions that 
are simply too important to Illinois agriculture to delay.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the prescription 
drug reimportation provisions included in the conference report for the 
FY 2001 agriculture appropriations bill. I also want to thank my 
colleagues, especially Senators Jeffords and Dorgan for their hard work 
and dedication to this important issue.
  The United States is in the midst of a time of amazing prosperity. 
Nearly every week it seems that we hear of astounding new breakthroughs 
in biomedical research and in new prescription medications. And there 
is no question in anyone's mind that we have the best--the very best--
health care in the world.
  But our health care system is not without its flaws. Prescription 
drugs are revolutionizing health treatments, but their high cost is 
causing concern throughout the country. Everywhere we turn--from ``60 
Minutes'' to Newsweek--we hear of the struggles that our nation's 
patients, especially the elderly, face, and the dramatic difference in 
costs of prescription medication between the U.S. and our neighbors to 
the North.
  The high cost of prescription medications in the United States is 
forcing many of our nation's seniors to make unthinkable decisions that 
are harmful to their health and well-being. It is simply unacceptable 
that the elderly have to chose between filling a prescription or buying 
groceries.
  A solution to the pressing problem of prescription drug coverage 
can't come soon enough. In 1998, drug costs grew more than any other 
category of health care--skyrocketing by 15.4 percent in a single year. 
And that's a special burden for seniors, who pay half the cost 
associated with their prescriptions as opposed to those under 65 who 
pay just a third.
  Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug 
expenses--one of the latest studies shows that the average senior now 
spends $1,100 every year on medications. And with the latest HCFA 
estimates putting the number of seniors without drug coverage at around 
31 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries--or about 12 out of nearly 40 
million Americans--it's not hard to see why we can no longer wait to 
provide a solution. In fact, nearly 86 percent of Medicare 
beneficiaries must use at least one prescription drug every day.
  Who are these seniors who don't have prescription drug coverage? Who 
are the ones traveling by the busload to Canada to buy their 
prescription drugs? These are people caught in the middle--most of whom 
are neither wealthy enough to afford their own coverage, nor poor 
enough to qualify for Medicaid. We know that seniors between 100 
percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level have the lowest 
levels of prescription drug coverage.
  In my eyes, it is absolutely unconscionable that any senior would be 
arrested after purchasing their otherwise legal prescription medication 
in Canada. That is why I teamed up with Senators Jeffords and Dorgan to 
introduce the ``Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act'' as an amendment 
to the FY 2001 agriculture appropriations bill. The amendment was 
accepted overwhelmingly by a vote of 74 to 21.
  I am pleased that the conference report includes a compromise on this 
amendment. The conference provision allows pharmacists and wholesalers 
to import prescription drugs for sale to American customers that were 
made in

[[Page S10693]]

the U.S. or in FDA-approved facilities. The provisions require 
stringent safety and efficacy regulations. Drugs may only be reimported 
from Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, Israel, New Zealand, and South 
Africa. Controlled substances, such as morphine, cannot be imported.
  Drugs that are going to be reimported must meet U.S. labeling 
requirements and there will be stringent reporting requirements on any 
reimportation. The new provisions prohibit manufacturers from entering 
into a contract to prevent reimportation. Drug reimportation will not 
be allowed unless the Secretary of HHS can certify that the reimported 
drugs are safe and effective. The FDA will not be allowed to send 
letters to individuals about their personal reimportation unless the 
FDA believes that the drugs the person is bringing back are not safe, 
not effective, or not labeled correctly. Finally, the Secretary of HHS 
must certify that reimported drugs will save consumers money.
  Opponents of the reimportation of prescription medications have well-
founded concerns about the safety of these medications. There is no 
doubt that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the world's premier 
agency in ensuring not only that drugs are safe and effective for their 
intended use, but that the actual manufacture of these drugs is done 
cleanly and safely.

  So when Congress considers changing the law to allow the importation 
of either retail or personal use prescription medication, we must also 
consider the safety implications that are involved: Are other countries 
insisting on the same standards we are? Are other countries 
guaranteeing the effectiveness of the medication--medication that is 
purportedly identical in strength? Are other countries using the same 
ingredients and ensuring that there are no impurities in these 
ingredients?
  The conference provision focuses on these safety considerations and 
includes substantial safeguards against the reimportation of lesser-
quality prescription medication and stringent regulation to ensure that 
Americans have access to only the safest of products.
  Clearly, seniors are traveling to Canada because the price of 
prescription medications is generally less expensive than in the United 
States. The difference in the prices between the Canadian and the 
American market for pharmaceutical products does not come because we 
are purchasing different drugs or different quantities of drugs. It is 
this point that I hear the most about from my constituents: why can a 
person buy the same exact drug, in the same exact dosage, and the same 
quantity, for so much less in Canada than they can in Maine?
  The disparity in costs between U.S. and Canadian drug costs reflects 
our different markets, but also the government-run health care system 
that limits choices and proscribes doctors and care for Canadian 
consumers. The Canadian health care system is a government-run 
monopoly, an approach soundly rejected by the American public in 1994. 
In the U.S., costs are constrained through the market--not by the 
government--as health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, and 
preferred customers like the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 
negotiate heavy discounts based on the size of their insurance pool.
  Seniors in the U.S. have limited bargaining power to negotiate down 
drug costs because they are not part of a single pool. Yet if seniors 
were united in a single group, they could exercise substantial clout in 
the marketplace to negotiate lower drug costs.
  There are 39 million Medicare beneficiaries--and these 39 million 
customers purchase a third of our nation's prescription medications. 
This represents a very large section of the market. Enacting 
prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries will make seniors 
a part of buyer groups with greater marketplace clout. This market 
force will allow seniors as a group to negotiate discounted 
pharmaceutical costs that will not only be the most economically sound 
solution, but will also guarantee seniors coverage of their 
prescription drugs.
  When American seniors find they have no market power, they often 
determine that their only recourse is to buy their much-needed drugs in 
a completely different market. It is fundamentally unfair when seniors 
in Maine feel they must drive across the Canadian border to obtain 
affordable prescription medications.
  Allowing the reimportation of prescription medications is, at best, 
an interim approach. It can be implemented while Congress debates the 
larger issue of Medicare reform, and enacting meaningful prescription 
drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Again, Mr. President, I rise in support of these provisions and I 
thank the conferees for their willingness to address this vital issue 
and their dedication to hammering out a workable compromise.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concerns 
regarding a provision relating to our trade remedy laws that is a part 
of the agriculture appropriations conference report that is before us 
today. My concerns regarding this measure relate both to the way this 
provision found its way into this conference report, as well as to its 
substance.
  With regard to procedure, I am troubled, to say the least, that a 
significant modification of our trade laws is being made with no 
consideration or deliberation by the committees of jurisdiction. I 
would have hoped that the Agriculture Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee would have considered the importance of 
allowing the committee of jurisdiction--the Committee on Finance--to 
review this provision before deciding to adopt this measure in 
conference. After all, this amendment represents a dramatic change in 
the function and purpose of our trade laws.
  Currently, our trade laws are designed to address any dumping or 
subsidized sales into our market by imposing an offsetting duty on 
imports. With the enactment of this procedure, however, not only will 
the domestic producer enjoy the benefit of having a surcharge applied 
to the sales of its foreign competitor, but they will also get a 
significant cash payment courtesy of the U.S. treasury. This is not an 
insignificant amount. According to the U.S. Customs Service, over $200 
million of dumping and countervailing duties were assessed on imports 
last year.
  What this will likely do is to encourage the filing of cases in 
circumstances that would not otherwise merit it. After all, the cash 
payment will not be made to the whole domestic industry. Instead, only 
those who supported the filing of the antidumping petition will be 
paid. Differentiating between different parts of a domestic industry in 
this way is unprecedented in our trade policy and completely 
unwarranted.
  Now I understand that the money under this proposal is supposed to be 
funneled to research and development, and other legitimate purposes. 
But money is fungible, and I fear that we will only be encouraging 
litigiousness.
  Who will benefit from this proposal? It is certainly not our 
consumers, who will pay significantly higher prices as a result, and 
who will likely have to suffer from an even greater number of cases 
being filed.
  Our farmers and our other export industries will not benefit. After 
all, what will now happen with the enactment of this measure is that we 
will likely be obliged to pay in some future negotiation, such as 
market access on agriculture, to preserve what will undoubtedly be 
described as a private right of action to garner industry-specific 
government subsidies.
  Ironically, the industries that traditionally rely on the dumping and 
countervailing duty laws will also likely get little benefit from this 
proposal. While I understand the frustration of some of those who have 
suffered from foreign dumping and subsidization, this measure, 
ironically, will do nothing to eliminate unfair trade practices or to 
ameliorate the conditions that allow these unfair trade practices to 
persist. We will only have undercut our own efforts to impose greater 
disciplines on European agricultural subsidies, Japanese support for 
its steel industry, or Korean support for their automobile industry. 
This is manifestly bad trade policy wholly apart from the serious 
technical deficiencies of the proposal.
  And what will we say once our trading partners decide to follow our 
lead and adopt this same scheme in their trade remedy laws? Will we 
complain? Or will we sit quietly as our farmers and manufacturers begin 
to face yet another hurdle in their efforts to sell in foreign markets.

[[Page S10694]]

  Mr. President, this is an ill-considered proposal that not only 
damages our broader trade policy interests, but it also up-ends the 
committee structure. I am a strong supporter of our trade remedy laws, 
but this proposal distorts our laws in a way that serves no 
constructive purpose. This is unfortunate and unnecessary, and I regret 
that the Agriculture Subcommittee chose to take this action.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the conference report includes a 
provision that is designed to eliminate an inequity that has arisen 
regarding a special grade designation of rice known as sweet rice. This 
rice had been ineligible for price support for some time, but the 
Department of Agriculture changed the rules in December 1999 to make 
the 1999 crop eligible for marketing loans and loan deficiency payments 
for the first time. Unfortunately, producers of this rice had not been 
notified by the county offices of the crop's eligibility until after 
the period for obtaining loans and loan deficiency payments had 
expired.
  The provision in the conference report is designed to correct this 
inequity. The provision would extend the eligibility date for such 
loans and loan deficiency payments and allow producers of such rice who 
lost beneficial interest in the crop on or before May 31, 2000, the 
final date for obtaining loans or loan deficiency payment, to obtain a 
loan deficiency payment based on the payment rate in effect on the date 
they lost the beneficial interest. Producers who lost the beneficial 
interest in their production after May 31, 2000 would be eligible to 
receive a loan deficiency payment based on the payment rate in effect 
on May 31. The conferees had agreed that this provision was necessary 
to make whole those producers of the crop who had lost the opportunity 
to obtain price support through no fault of their own.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with sections 745 and 746 of this bill, 
the Congress intends to facilitate access for Americans to reimport 
U.S.-made prescription medicines, as long as it does not lower the 
safety standards that previous Congresses and Administrations have 
carefully developed in consumer, health and safety protection 
legislation over the years. Under these provisions, Americans are 
allowed access to U.S. products sold overseas at lower prices provided 
that those medicines, when reimported, are demonstrated to be safe and 
effective.
  At the time the Senate considered this appropriations bill, the 
Senate adopted an additional safeguard to protect consumer health and 
safety. By a vote of 96 to 0, the Senate agreed to an amendment which 
Senator Kohl and I offered to the amendment of Senator Jeffords to 
include the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 on this bill. 
That amendment is retained in this conference report, and requires the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to make two determinations 
before the changes to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA, 
in section 745(c) can be implemented. The Secretary is required to 
demonstrate to the Congress that implementation will: (1) pose no 
additional risk to the public's health and safety, and (2) result in a 
significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American 
consumer.
  As contained in section 745(c), section 804(l) enlists the expertise 
and conscience of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make a 
specific and clear demonstration to assure these changes to the law 
will produce their intended result and do no unintended harm. In a 
written report to the Congress, the Secretary is to demonstrate the 
factual basis for his or her decision. That report should include 
relevant analysis and information that implementation of these changes 
in law will pose no additional risks to the American public's health 
and safety and will significantly reduce retail prices.
  After all, the motivation for these changes in law is to let U.S. 
drugs be brought back from Canada and other countries where they cost 
less, allowing these drugs to be available to individual American 
consumers at lower prices. If reimportation results primarily in 
profits for importers and does not result in a reduction in the price 
of drugs to American consumers, then the intent of these provisions is 
not achieved.
  I believe that with the additional safeguard provided by the original 
amendment adopted by the Senate, we can be more assured that this new 
drug reimportation system, if implemented, will not have adverse 
unintended effects on public health and safety and will achieve its 
intended result of making drugs more affordable for individual American 
consumers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to urge my 
colleagues to support this Agriculture appropriations conference 
report. I want to thank Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Appropriations Committee, for his work on this important 
legislation. In particular, I want to thank him on behalf of the dairy 
farmers across the nation, New England and Vermont. Included in this 
agriculture spending bill is badly needed support for dairy farms. 
These dairy assistance payments will bring approximately six thousand, 
four hundred dollars for the average 80-cow dairy farm. At a time when 
the nation's dairy farmers are facing low milk prices, these payments 
will help make ends meet.
  In Vermont, these payments will give our dairy farmers a much needed 
boost heading into the long winter. I also want to make a few brief 
remarks to reiterate my support for the prescription drug provision 
included in this bill, and to address some of the unfortunate rhetoric 
that I have heard during this debate.
  We all know why this provision is in this bill. The American people 
are fed up with the situation that exists today, where Americans pay 
far more for FDA-approved, American-made prescription drugs than 
patients in any other country in the world. I am not here to demonize 
the drug industry. It's true that these companies are making some 
miraculous breakthroughs and improving the lives of many Americans. But 
why must Americans have to shoulder seemingly the entire burden of 
paying for research, development and a healthy return to shareholders? 
I believe it is time we put an end to this unfair burden. I don't think 
it is fair to expect Americans, especially our senior citizens living 
on fixed incomes, to pay the highest costs in the world for 
prescription medicines, many of which are manufactured within our 
borders. That's why more than a year ago I started working with the 
Food and Drug Administration, the agency responsible for overseeing the 
safety of the drug supply in this country to see if there were a way we 
could safely reimport prescription medicines into our country.
  In July, on an overwhelming vote of 74-21, the United States Senate 
agreed to an amendment I offered with Senators Wellstone, Dorgan, 
Gorton, Snowe, and others to do just that. Just three weeks ago, 
President Clinton endorsed the Jeffords language, saying ``I support 
the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 which the Senate 
passed'' and ``I urge you to send me the Senate legislation.'' The 
negotiators for the House and Senate on the agriculture appropriations 
bill have now completed their work. Unfortunately, the process used in 
reaching this agreement was marred by partisanship. That is 
regrettable. But the product is as strong as the one endorsed by the 
Clinton administration, and even stronger in some respects.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have criticized this proposal for 
going too far. My Democratic friends have criticized this for not going 
far enough. The legions of lobbyists for pharmaceutical industry 
vigorously oppose this proposal, and tried their best to get it 
stripped from this legislation. I continue to believe that the proposal 
before the Senate today, while slightly different from my plan, is a 
strong and workable proposal. Critics have argued that the proposal has 
been weakened because it allows drug companies to frustrate the intent 
through manipulations of sales contracts. The fact is, this bill is 
stronger than either the House-passed or Senate-passed versions because 
it includes a clear prohibition of such agreements--something that was 
missing in the House and Senate bills. In fact, let me quote from that

[[Page S10695]]

section of the bill: ``No manufacturer of a covered product may enter 
into a contract or agreement that includes a provision to prevent the 
sale or distribution of covered products imported pursuant to 
subsection (a).''

  I don't know how to be more clear and simple than that. But just in 
case my colleagues think that stronger language is needed, the bill 
grants to the Secretary the ability to react to unanticipated 
challenges through language in another section which requires that the 
Secretary issue regulations containing any additional provisions 
necessary ``as a means to facilitate the importation of such 
products.'' Such broad authority will ensure that this provision works. 
In fact, less than 10 days ago, at the very time that the Clinton 
administration was changing its position on the Jeffords amendment, the 
New York Times reported that it planned to implement the Patient's Bill 
of Rights by regulation. It is hard to understand why the 
administration so eagerly sees regulatory authority where many do not, 
yet cannot see it when plainly written in the statute. Critics have 
claimed that the latest version of the bill contains a loophole 
regarding the labeling requirements. The fact is, the bill requires 
manufacturers to provide all necessary labeling information, and the 
provision that I just quoted gives the FDA very broad power to write 
any other rules necessary to accomplish the intent of the provision. 
Moreover, this labeling language is unchanged from the version that 
adopted by the Senate and endorsed by President Clinton.
  Critics have claimed that the bill unfairly restricts the countries 
from which these products may come. The fact is that the bill lists 23 
countries to start the process, and lets the FDA expand the list at any 
time. Critics have complained that this bill will expire after about 7 
years. The fact is that this is a vast improvement over the House-
passed version which would have expired after only one year. As we all 
know, major legislation is frequently required to be reauthorized on 5 
year cycles in order to force Congress to make improvements, and 
popular effective laws always survive this process.
  Mr. President, this bill, like any other, may not be perfect, but the 
fact is that it is stronger than the original Jeffords amendment. That 
is why John Rector, senior vice president for the National Community 
Pharmacists Association who has been a leader in the effort to reimport 
lower cost drugs and whose members would be importing under this 
provision. Mr. Rector recently indicated that this bill, ``will result 
in the importation of far less expensive drugs.'' This is a workable 
bill, and that is why the pharmaceutical industry is fighting this 
tooth and nail--they know it will work. They would like nothing more 
than to see us to kill this bill. One of our colleagues in the House, 
who has complained that this provision does not go far enough, noted 
that this is ``the first defeat ever suffered by the pharmaceutical 
industry in memory.''
  Now I ask you, if this bill is unworkable as the critics have 
charged, why is the pharmaceutical industry so opposed to the bill, and 
why are even our critics calling this a defeat for the industry? That 
should tell you something about what they really think the effect will 
be of this provision. As I said before, Mr. President, I am 
disappointed with how partisan this issue has become, but I am glad 
that the President has said he will sign the bill. I am calling on 
Congress to put partisanship aside and pass this bill. And I am calling 
on the Clinton administration to quickly write these regulations so 
that ordinary Americans can realize savings on prescription drugs as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I rise also today in support of two important food 
stamp provisions included in this conference report. These provisions 
are based upon S. 1805, the Hunger Relief Act of which I was proud to 
be an original cosponsor.
  The language in the bill will allow low-income people who spend more 
than 50 percent of their income on housing to receive food stamp 
benefits at a level that more accurately reflects their need. 
Additionally, it will allow low-income people who need a car to find or 
keep work to still receive food stamp benefits and continue to own a 
reliable car.
  These provisions will provide important relief for needy families in 
Vermont and all around the United States. In Vermont alone, 42,000 
people, the great majority families with children or senior citizens, 
are on food stamps.
  Both provisions in this conference report are important to my state 
of Vermont. First, the increase in the maximum amount of excess shelter 
expense deduction to qualify for food stamps is important as we have 
lately seen housing prices increasing rapidly in Vermont. Without the 
increase contained in the conference report, rapidly rising housing 
prices are diluting the effectiveness of the food stamp program because 
the true need for food stamps is not being adequately represented. The 
vehicle allowance provisions are vital in a rural state like Vermont 
where a reliable car is almost a necessity to get to or find work. 
Providing flexibility in the vehicle allowance will allow low-income 
individuals to qualify for food stamps while being able to continue to 
own a reliable car.
  While I would have liked to have seen the entire Hunger Relief Act 
included in this appropriations bill, the inclusion of these two 
provisions is an important first step forward. I will continue to push 
for Congressional passage of the entire Hunger Relief Act, but wanted 
to express my gratitude to the conferees for the inclusion of these 
provisions which are so important to my constituents.
  Mr. President, as the principal author of the drug importation 
amendment included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill, I am taking 
this opportunity to provide a detailed explanation of the provisions of 
the drug importation section.
  The conference report to H.R. 4461 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act and expands the entities permitted to import certain drugs 
into the U.S. under Section 801 of the Act, to include pharmacists and 
drug wholesalers. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will 
promulgate regulations to carry out the importation provisions after 
consultation with the United States Trade Representative and the 
Commissioner of Customs.
  Under the new section 804(b), the regulations promulgated by the 
Secretary must ensure that each drug product that is imported under 
this section complies with section 501, 502, and 505, and any other 
applicable provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act 
(FFD&C Act) and is safe and effective for its intended use, as well as 
the provisions of this section. This provision also grants broad 
discretionary authority to the Secretary to include any additional 
provisions in the regulations that are necessary to protect the public 
health and to facilitate the importation of drug products under this 
section.
  Subsections (c) and (d) outline extensive record keeping requirements 
that must be met in order to import under this law, including:
  (1) the name, amount and dosage description of the active ingredient;
  (2) the shipping date, quantity shipped, and points of origin and 
destination for the product, price paid by the importer, and price sold 
by the importer;
  (3) verification of the original source and amount of the product 
received;
  (4) the manufacturer's lot or control number;
  (5) the name, address, and telephone number of the importer, 
including the professional license number of the importer (if any);
  (6) lab records assuring that the product is in compliance with 
established standards;
  (7) proof that testing was conducted at a qualifying laboratory; and
  (8) any other information the Secretary determines is necessary to 
ensure the protection of the public health.
  For a product that is coming from the first foreign recipient, the 
importer must also demonstrate: (1) that the product was received from 
a U.S. manufacturer, (2) the amount received and that the amount being 
imported into the U.S. is not more than the amount received, (3) for 
the first shipment, documentation showing that each batch was 
statistically sampled for authenticity and degradation, (4) for all 
subsequent shipments, documentation that a statistically valid sample 
of the shipments was tested for authenticity and

[[Page S10696]]

degradation, and (4) that the product meets labeling requirements and 
is approved for marketing in the U.S.
  For a product not coming directly from the first foreign recipient, 
the importer must have documentation demonstrating: (1) that each batch 
is statistically sampled and tested for authenticity and degradation, 
and (2) that the product meets labeling requirements and is approved 
for marketing in the U.S. All testing must be performed at an FDA-
approved U.S. laboratory.
  Subsection (e) requires that manufacturers provide information to 
importers sufficient to authenticate the product being imported and to 
meet the labeling requirements of the FFD&C Act. This provision is 
understood and intended to require manufacturers to provide such 
labeling information as is necessary for importers to comply with 
applicable labeling requirements sufficient for sale and marketing in 
the U.S. It is also understood and intended that the requirements and 
authority granted in this provision are supplemented, if necessary, by 
the broad discretionary authority contained in 804(b)(3) to facilitate 
the importation of drug products under this section. This information 
shall be kept in strict confidence. Pursuant to the ``Enhanced 
Penalties'' subsection below, violation of this subsection is 
punishable by 10 years in prison or a fine of $250,000 or both.
  Subsection (f) refers to an initial list of countries with recognized 
regulatory structures from which drugs may be imported under this 
section. The list includes Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan, New 
Zealand, Switzerland, South Africa, and the EU (Belgium, Denmark, 
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, England, Liechtenstein, and 
Norway). The Secretary may expand the list at anytime, taking into 
consideration protection of the public health.
  Subsection (g) requires the Secretary to suspend imports of specific 
products or by specific importers upon discovery of a pattern of 
importation of counterfeit or violative products, until an 
investigation has been completed.
  Subsection (h) prohibits contracts or agreements that include any 
provision preventing the sale or distribution of imported drugs under 
this section. This provision is understood and intended to prevent 
manufacturers from ``gaming'' the system or interfering with 
importation under this section through contractual arrangements that 
utilize restrictions or disincentives for reselling the drugs into the 
U.S.
  Subsection (i) requires the Secretary to conduct a study regarding 
the compliance of importers with the requirements of this section, and 
the incidents of importation of noncompliant shipments of prescription 
drugs under this section, as well as the effect of importations under 
this section on trade and patent laws. The Comptroller General will 
study the effect of this provision on prices of covered products.
  Subsection (k) provides definitions for a number of terms in this 
act, and includes several changes and additions from Senate-passed 
version. The definition of ``covered product'' clarifies that certain 
controlled substances are not eligible for importation, and that 
biological products are also ineligible. In order that this act not 
create a disincentive for charitable contributions of drugs to foreign 
countries or humanitarian organizations, this subsection excludes such 
products from eligibility under this act.
  This provision also recognizes that many parenteral drug products 
(drugs that are administered through IVs, injections, or other means 
other than orally) are considered by the Secretary to be more sensitive 
to improper storage and handling, and may be at a higher risk of 
degradation or present more difficulty in testing for authentication or 
degradation. Therefore, the 801(d)(1) importation restriction shall 
continue to apply to parenteral drug products, the importation of 
which, according to the Secretary, may pose a threat to the public 
health.
  The definition of pharmacist is similar to that in the Senate-passed 
bill, and is presumed to include a licensed pharmacist, since such a 
pharmacy is required to have a licensed pharmacist of record.
  Subsection (1) is similar to the amendment offered by Senator Cochran 
and adopted unanimously by the Senate during the floor debate. The 
provision, as included in this conference report, has been changed to 
require the Secretary to ``demonstrate'' (instead of ``certify'' in 
Senate-passed version) that implementation will ``pose no additional 
risk'' (instead of `` pose no risk'' in the Senate-passed version). The 
provision is otherwise identical to the Senate-passed version.
  This act is no longer effective after 5 years from the effective date 
of the regulations promulgated hereunder. The 5 year clock will begin 
to run after the regulations are finalized and any litigation is 
completed.
  The conference report includes a new subsection which clarifies that 
a violation of this section is a prohibited act under the FFD&C Act. 
This new provision also provides for enhanced penalties (10 years in 
prison and/or $250,000 fine) for manufacturers who fail to provide 
information necessary for testing or labeling of imports, and importers 
who divulge such information for any purpose other than verifying 
authentication or degradation tests.
  The conference report includes a provision that passed the House 
earlier this year pertaining to the importation of prescription drugs 
imported for personal use. Current FDA practice has been to not 
confiscate certain drugs re-imported for personal consumption, but, in 
many cases, to send intimidating warning letters that do not specify 
how the law is being violated. This bill includes provisions 
prohibiting the FDA from sending warning notices unless it includes a 
statement of the underlying reasons for the notice.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues that 
worked so closely with me on this issue. Specifically, I would like to 
thank Senators Gorton, Welstone, and Dorgan, and their staffs, Kristen 
Michal, John Gilman, and Stephanie Mohl for their countless hours of 
work on this provision. Without the bipartisan cooperation of my 
collegues, passage today of this provision would have been impossible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this provision and support this 
Agriculture appropriations conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, now before the Senate is the conference 
report on H.R. 4461, the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations bill for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies. This conference report includes many items important 
to West Virginia, and to all states, relating to agricultural research 
and production, conservation, rural development, food assistance, human 
health, and many other priority areas. I congratulate Senator Thad 
Cochran, Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, and Senator Herb 
Kohl, Ranking Member, for their hard work in finalizing this very 
important conference agreement.
  This conference report provides a total of $74.458 billion in new 
non-emergency budget authority. This total includes $34.691 billion for 
agricultural programs (including reimbursement to the Commodity Credit 
Corporation for net realized losses); $873 million for conservation 
programs; $2.487 billion for rural development programs; $34.117 
billion for domestic food programs; $1.091 billion for international 
trade assistance programs; and $1.168 billion for related agencies, 
including the Food and Drug Administration.
  It is important to note that this conference report includes more 
than the annual Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations for programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Subcommittee. This conference report 
also includes $3.642 billion in emergency spending. This funding is 
related, in large part, to action taken by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee on May 9, 2000, when the Committee approved Fiscal Year 2000 
Supplemental Appropriations. The House of Representatives approved a 
similar FY-2000 Supplemental Appropriations bill on March 30, 2000.
  Included in the $3.642 billion in emergency spending are provisions 
to provide assistance to those who have suffered from natural disasters 
which have occurred this year and to partially offset certain market 
losses suffered by the agriculture sector. When

[[Page S10697]]

the Appropriations Committee considered supplemental spending more than 
five months ago, I offered a number of amendments, which were adopted, 
to provide a timely response to predicted summer drought conditions. 
One of those provisions would provide $450 million for livestock-
related losses, more than double the amount available last year. 
Another item provided an additional $50 million in loans and grants to 
provide water supply in rural communities, especially those suffering 
from drought conditions. I am happy to report that this conference 
report includes these two items and levels of $490 million and $70 
million, respectively.
  One other item included in this conference report is a provision 
which I proposed on the subject of compensation to U.S. industries for 
losses sustained as a result of unfair foreign trade practices. The 
U.S. agriculture and manufacturing sectors have been able to avail 
themselves of legal remedies to challenge foreign actions, but have not 
had adequate means to recover from the losses resulting from those 
actions. Now, such a mechanism will be in place and U.S. farmers and 
workers of all trades affected by unfair trade practices will be able, 
in essence, to recover monetarily rather than simply having the right 
to file a complaint.
  This extra step is necessary. Current law has simply not been strong 
enough to deter unfair trading practices, whether in the agriculture or 
manufacturing industries. Continued foreign dumping and subsidy 
practices have reduced the ability of our injured domestic industries 
to reinvest in their workers, equipment, or technology. My provision 
simply provides a mechanism to help injured U.S. industries recover 
from the harmful effects of illegal foreign dumping and subsidies. And, 
most importantly, if our foreign trading partners play by the rules, my 
provision will never have to be used.
  Mr. President, this conference report includes many items important 
to all Americans, and I am happy to support it. Action on this measure 
is long overdue. Disaster assistance is badly needed to help people all 
across the nation who are suffering from drought, storms, floods, and 
crop loss due to infestations of pests and disease. I urge all my 
colleagues to join me in support of this conference agreement.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, congratulations to the chairman and 
Senator Kohl for the work they have done on this Agriculture 
appropriations bill. It indeed has been a very difficult endeavor. I 
plan to vote for final passage of this Agriculture appropriations bill 
because I think it is very important and there are many very important 
things in it dealing with agriculture, which is with what we would 
think an Agriculture appropriations conference report should deal.
  I highlight, however, one thing that I think is very bad public 
policy; that is, the question of an amendment to this bill allowing for 
the importation of foreign drugs manufactured in foreign countries, 
under foreign standards, to be imported into the United States under 
the guise of ``this is the solution'' or even a partial solution to the 
high costs of prescription drugs and the unavailability of prescription 
drugs under our Medicare program for the 40 million senior citizens in 
this country who need prescription drugs.
  Many people said when the bill left the Senate that this provision 
that was added was a sham. I thought it was a sham when it left and it 
has come back and it is a worse sham than when it left. This is ``Son 
of Sham,'' or a double sham, in the sense that this makes absolutely no 
sense.

  Members of both sides of the aisle have said: We are against drug 
price controls because that is un-American; that is not the way we 
encourage businesses to operate; we want businesses to compete against 
each other and the companies that can do the best job for the best 
price get the business. That is what the American system is all about.
  Instead, we have in this bill a provision that says, we might not 
like price controls in this country, but we are going to import not 
only the drugs from other countries but their price control systems--as 
if that somehow makes it all right. The concept is other countries have 
price controls; therefore, it is cheaper. The fact is, in Canada, to 
which so many of our people point, there are some drugs that are 
cheaper because of price controls, but there are many other drugs that, 
in fact, cost more in Canada than they do here. In many cases, the 
drugs we have here are simply not available in Canada at all, or maybe 
a year or two after they are available in the United States, because of 
the adverse impact of a price control system we are now trying to 
import into this country.
  In addition to that reason that this is bad policy, there are about 
10 former Food and Drug Administration agencies that said: Wait a 
minute; hold on, Congress. What in the world are you doing? This is not 
a safe process you are legislating into law. We are not going to be 
able to determine the safety of these drugs. Maybe in Canada it would 
be all right, but what about Pakistan or what about a Third World 
country or what about a country we have very little to do with? Are we 
going to let the drugs come in from those countries as well, which this 
bill allows? How are we going to be able to guarantee that the same 
safety or precautions that are in effect in a Third World nation are in 
effect here in the United States in order to protect the consuming 
public? How are we going to know that the little pill that is the same 
color and approximately the same size has in it the same material that 
it has in this country, that has been approved by our Food and Drug 
Administration?
  This may give some of our colleagues a feeling we have done something 
to solve the prescription drug cost problem for our seniors. It does 
not. It does not come close. This is not even a fig leaf of coverage 
for those who reply to: What have you done on the issue of prescription 
drugs? The answer is, we probably made the system worse by bringing in 
drugs the quality of which we cannot guarantee. We cannot guarantee 
where they came from, how they were produced, or who has been 
protecting them since they left the factory and ultimately found their 
way into the United States. The answer is not that complicated. What it 
takes is a lot of political courage to do what is right and to tell our 
seniors there are no real easy answers to this problem.
  What we need to provide to America's seniors is the same thing that I 
have as a Member of the Senate, that every one of my colleagues has and 
every one of the Members of the other body has and the other 9 million 
Federal employees have; that is, coverage under their health insurance 
plans that cover prescription drugs. When I walk into a drugstore, I do 
not pay full retail price, not one of us does. We get a discount 
because we do volume purchasing under our Federal insurance plan. In 
addition to the volume purchasing, we also have a very small copay, 
which allows us, instead of having to pay full price, to pay only a 
fraction of the price. That is the same type of system we should put 
into effect for our Nation's seniors.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The 5 minutes of the Senator 
has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator 2 
additional minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I don't want to belabor the point, but when I walk into a 
drugstore, the retail price may be $100. But because of volume 
purchasing, it may only cost me $70, and because I have coverage, I 
don't pay $70. I pay a small copayment of maybe $30. I walk out of the 
drugstore with $100 worth of drugs paying only $30 because I am 
covered. A Medicare recipient who has no coverage pays the full retail 
price of $100. That is what is wrong with the system as it is currently 
constructed.
  The answer clearly is not to say we are going to allow people to 
import drugs from Bangladesh or Pakistan or other countries around the 
world where we cannot guarantee the quality. That is not the way to do 
it. It was a sham when it left the Senate. It is a sham as it is being 
presented to the Senate today. We should have the political courage to 
address this in a very serious way.
  To those of our two colleagues who have worked so hard on this, I 
thank them for their understanding and their participation. I do not 
fault them for what has happened. It passed the House by a huge margin. 
It passed the Senate by a huge margin. It is not the right policy and 
doesn't solve the problem. I

[[Page S10698]]

wanted to bring it to the attention of my colleagues.
  Having said that, I intend to vote for the overall product because of 
the many good things it has in it for American agriculture and American 
farmers. I think our two leaders are to be congratulated for that 
product they bring before the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few remarks 
about the Agriculture bill. I thank Senator Cochran and his committee 
for their work on a very difficult issue at a very difficult time for 
agriculture. There are no easy solutions to the problems farmers are 
facing. We know farmers are in trouble. One experienced farmer who 
heads the Alabama Farmer's Federation told me that without Federal 
help, he believes in just the next 2 years, one-third of the farmers in 
Alabama would have gone out of business. It has been costly, but I 
believe what we are doing is the right thing to do.
  Also, before I make those remarks, I would like to say I did return, 
with quite a number of Senators this afternoon, from the memorial 
service at Newport News to recognize the sailors who lost their lives 
in this attack on the Cole. We have to remember the Cole. We have to 
remember them. For a whole lot of reasons it was a very meaningful 
experience for me and I believe for their survivors. I was able to meet 
a number of sailors who had been wounded. I think all of us in this 
country need to pause, periodically, to remember how much we owe to the 
men and women in uniform.
  This year, farmers in my home State have faced the worst drought in 
over a century. In particular, farmers and cattlemen in the southeast 
region of the state, have been devastated. This drought has come after 
two previous years of drought. Scorching temperatures and virtually no 
rain have made it extremely difficult for these fine men and women to 
continue to farm. In Headland, AL, for example, only 18 inches of rain 
has fallen this year. This is a part of the State that normally sees 
over 45 inches by this time.
  More rain has come lately but not nearly enough and not soon enough 
to compensate for the earlier losses. Corn yields are down 40 percent. 
The peanut crop has had a very bad year, and the cotton crop has been 
very bad.
  It has not been a good year at all for Alabama farmers. This drought 
has been one of the most severe on record. At some point since March 1, 
all parts of Alabama have been classified ``exceptional drought'' by 
the U.S. Drought Monitor. This is the most severe drought rating.
  The entire State has been declared a disaster by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and the Department of Agriculture has done some good work 
in helping to respond to the crisis.
  However, I continue to hear from farmers at home that they question 
how long they can actually stay in business if the situation doesn't 
improve. A combination of bad crop-years and low prices can be 
devastating. Some livestock producers have liquidated their herds. 
Nearly all of them had to sell their stock earlier and lighter than 
normal, costing them money. Over 50 percent of this year's hay harvest 
has been lost, and this is just in Alabama. There have also been 
droughts in other States such as Mississippi, Georgia and Texas.
  The $3.6 billion in emergency disaster aid included in this 
conference report is needed to assist these families and others who 
have experienced losses from drought, fire and other natural disasters.
  I am especially pleased that Senator Cochran and the conference 
committee agreed to retain my amendment in the Senate version of the 
bill to assist Alabama in its emergency hay and feed operations for 
livestock producers. The Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, 
Mr. Charles Bishop; the Alabama Cattlemen's Association and Dr. Billy 
Powell, its leader; the Alabama Farmers Federation; and other 
organizations have worked together to provide assistance to struggling 
cattlemen throughout the summer. Unfortunately, the funding for this 
assistance has run out. The State funding has collapsed. The $5 million 
in this conference agreement will go a long way to help these cattlemen 
make it through the winter without having to sell off their herds, 
which undermines their ability to have a productive economic 
enterprise.

  I am also pleased that the conference report contains funding for a 
number of fine agricultural research projects in Alabama and all over 
the country. These projects keep us on the cutting edge of agriculture, 
and it is the only way we will be able to compete successfully in the 
world market. It includes catfish disease research. Catfish is one of 
the biggest cash crops for agriculture in the State. Peanut allergy 
research is a critical issue for us. I am particularly pleased the 
funding for Satsuma orange research was retained in the conference 
report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator what 
time he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the funding for Satsuma orange frost 
research will go a long way to nurturing this fledgling industry along 
the gulf coast.
  At the beginning of the 20th century, Satsuma orange groves 
flourished throughout the gulf coast. Indeed, they were running 
advertisements encouraging people around the country to come down and 
grow Satsuma oranges. In fact, 18,000 acres of the sweet, easy-to-peel 
fruit were farmed during the twenties and thirties along the upper gulf 
coast. However, a period of severe winters around 1940 led to the 
decline of Satsuma production.
  Today, fledgling Satsuma groves exist in Alabama, Louisiana, and 
Texas. Research by Auburn University, one of the finest research 
institutions in the world, is being conducted to determine how to make 
this fruit more frost resistant. There are some ideas percolating that 
may actually do that. This funding will give us the opportunity to 
revitalize this industry.
  I am certainly pleased with the overall agricultural spending. We 
have a lot of emergency assistance for farmers this year because it has 
been a particularly bad year in some areas of the country, including 
Alabama.
  Again, I thank Chairman Cochran for his leadership. He understands 
this issue; he understands this Senate. He has wrestled with these 
issues for years, and his leadership will help this bill pass with 
overwhelming support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank and congratulate the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for all of his work in crafting this 
conference report. I believe overall this measure does a very good job 
of providing funds for ongoing work at USDA, FDA, and the other 
agencies covered in this bill. It also provides much needed emergency 
relief for farmers and ranchers suffering from both market loss and 
natural disasters.
  However, I am disappointed that the conference committee could not 
come to a better conclusion on two highly controversial issues 
involving trade sanctions and reimportation of prescription drugs.
  With regard to the Cuba provision, I would have preferred the Senate 
language. That language received broad support in this body.
  With respect to the reimportation of prescription drugs, I am 
concerned the language in this report has too many restrictions and may 
not result in lower drug prices for our seniors, as well as others.
  While some of us disagree on the language of these two items, 
nevertheless this conference report does provide immediate and targeted 
economic relief to struggling producers. Some producers are receiving 
the lowest prices for their products in over 20 years.
  With respect to the dairy industry, the emergency provisions included 
in the conference report do not solve the larger problems facing our 
industry. However, it is an appropriate and vital step in protecting 
family dairy farmers. I encourage all Senators to support this 
conference report.
  The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture 
appropriations bill provides $78.5 billion in

[[Page S10699]]

funding for the operations and programs of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies. This 
conference report includes much needed emergency relief to assist 
farmers hurt by economic and weather-related losses. The conference 
report also includes legislative language regarding food and medicine 
sanctions and language regarding the reimportation of prescription 
drugs. I am pleased that the conference committee also accepted a 
provision that will make it easier for citizens to participate in the 
federal food stamp program.
  From the beginning of this year's appropriation cycle I have been 
honored to work with the very distinguished Chairman, Senator Cochran. 
The Senator from Mississippi has done an outstanding job of steering 
this bill through the appropriation process and I believe that with his 
leadership we have achieved a very fair and balanced conference report.
  There are two highly controversial issues relating to this conference 
report which prevented the House and Senate conferees from moving this 
bill prior to today. In fact, the FY 2001 Agricultural Appropriations 
bill was reported by the full Appropriations Committee on May 20, 2000 
and was approved by the full Senate on July 20, 2000. With farmers and 
ranchers struggling with significant market losses and natural 
disasters, it was my hope that we would have moved this legislation to 
the President's desk prior to the August recess period.
  With regard to the Cuba language, I am disappointed that the 
conferees did not accept the language that was included in the Senate 
version of this bill. The language approved by the Senate received 
broad support and would have created expanded opportunities for 
Americans to sell food and medicine to Cuba. The provision included in 
this conference report makes it more difficult for these sales to take 
place, by preventing U.S. financial institutions from providing 
financing. The provision also codifies travel restrictions on Americans 
going to Cuba, making it more difficult for farmers to travel to Cuba 
to negotiate a sale. Although I do not believe we should be lifting our 
broader embargo on Cuba until we see democratic reform in Cuba and the 
end of the repressive Castro regime, in the meantime, I believe that 
blocking the sale of food and medicine has done little to bring us 
closer to that goal and has the unintended consequence of harming the 
very people we want to help.
  With regards to the reimportation of prescription drugs, I am 
extremely disappointed with the process by which the conference 
provision was developed. We started with a very bipartisan process to 
develop workable language, but unfortunately, that process was 
hijacked. Instead, decisions were made in backroom deals behind closed 
doors. Even when improvements were suggested that would improve the 
language, they were ignored. This process was a disgrace to the Senate 
and to our nation's seniors who would benefit far more from a 
bipartisan process.
  American consumers are rightly concerned about the high costs of 
prescription drugs--especially when compared to prices in other 
countries. These high costs are forcing America's seniors to often 
choose between buying food or paying for their medicine bills. 
America's seniors have footed the bill for the pharmaceutical 
industry's high profits for far too long.
  I believe reimportation could help alleviate the high costs for many 
seniors, but I am concerned that the language in this conference report 
has several loopholes that will prevent it from being fully effective. 
In particular, I am concerned that the sunset provision will have a 
chilling effect on pharmacists and wholesalers, who may not invest in 
reimportation because the ability to do so will end in five years. And 
I am very concerned that drug companies can still keep American prices 
high by demanding that foreign sellers charge American pharmacists and 
wholesalers the higher, American-set prices when they reimport drugs. 
All of these issues, of course, could have been resolved in a 
bipartisan process.
  That said, I am hopeful that the spirit of the reimportation 
provision--to lower drug prices for American consumers--will become a 
reality as it is implemented. Let me remind the drug companies in this 
country that reimportation was overwhelmingly supported in both Houses 
of Congress. We fully expect drug companies to comply with the intent 
of the law, and not look for loopholes to continue to inflate their 
profits.
  Most importantly, let me say that while reimportation is an important 
first step toward helping seniors with high drug prices, make no 
mistake: this is not a substitute for a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. Anyone who claims that reimportation is the answer to the 
outrageous drug prices seniors face is out of step with reality.
  Drug prices are a major problem--but so is coverage. With one-third 
of seniors lacking any drug coverage at all, it is critical that we 
pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit as soon as possible.
  While some of us may disagree with the outcome on the Cuba sanctions 
and re-imported drug issues, this conference report does provide 
immediate and targeted economic relief to struggling farmers and 
ranchers. In my state of Wisconsin alone, we are losing three dairy 
farmers a day. While the dairy market loss payments included in this 
conference report does not solved the larger problems facing our 
industry, it is an appropriate and vital step necessary to protect our 
family farmers.
  Section 805 of the conference report provides assistance to dairy 
farmers in an amount equal to 35% of the drop in the price this year 
from the previous five year average. Let me restate that, ``35%'' of 
the ``drop'' in price. By contrast, earlier this year the 
administration proposed a farm emergency package for program crops that 
would have provided payments to guarantee farmers of certain 
commodities ``95%'' of the previous 5 year average ``total gross 
income''.
  I cannot overstate the devastation the current dairy price collapse 
is bringing to family farms all across America. Back home in Wisconsin, 
the crises is overwhelming. Recently, I received a call from a dairy 
producer named Tom LaGesse of Bloomer, Wisconsin. Mr. LaGesse informed 
me that in his small town, located in northwest Wisconsin, five 
producers within the span of one week went out of business. He also 
told me that if we do not provide immediate, and direct emergency 
payments within 60 days, he would be the next producer to go out of 
business. All too often we hear a lot of talk about saving the family 
farm but little action. Mr. President, these dairy payments will 
hopefully save Mr. LaGesse and many, many others like him.

  I am aware that producers may have questions regarding the 
implementation of the dairy payments included in this conference 
report. That is why I would like to insert into the Record the 
following questions and answers that may address the concerns of 
producers across the country.

        Questions and Answers Regarding Emergency Dairy Payments

       Question: How soon after the President signs this bill into 
     law can dairy producers expect to receive payments?
       Answer: For existing dairy farmers who received Dairy 
     Market Loss Assistance payments earlier this year, payments 
     should go out fairly quickly. New producers who have not 
     previously applied for or received Dairy Market Loss 
     Assistance payments from USDA may wait a little longer.
       Question: How will payments be calculated?
       Answer: Each producer's payment will be calculated by 
     multiplying their ``eligible'' production by the payment 
     rate. The payment rate equals 35 percent of the decline in 
     the market value of milk in 2000 from the previous five year 
     average. During 1995-99, the market value of all farm milk as 
     reported by USDA was $14.25 per hundredweight. USDA currently 
     projects the all milk price will average $12.40 per 
     hundredweight in 2000, so the projected payment rate would be 
     .35 times $1.85 or about 65-cents per hundredweight.
       Eligible production for existing producers who received 
     payments under the earlier program will, in most instances, 
     be their actual milk production marketed in either 1997 or 
     1998, whichever is higher, up to a limit of 3.9 million 
     pounds. Eligible production for existing producers who 
     received payments under the earlier program, but had no 
     production in 1997 or 1998, will be their actual milk 
     production marketed in 1999 up to a limit of 3.9 million 
     pounds.
       Existing producers in either of the above categories who 
     had less than 12 months of production in the base year used 
     to calculate their earlier payments will have the option of 
     substituting their actual production marketed during the 12 
     months from October 1,

[[Page S10700]]

     1999, through September 30, 2000, up to a limit of 3.9 
     million, if it is greater than their base period marketings 
     used for the earlier payments.
       Finally, eligible production for new producers who did not 
     receive payments under the earlier programs will be their 
     actual production marketed during the 12 months from October 
     1, 1999, through September 30, 2000, up to a limit of 3.9 
     million pounds.
       Question: Does a producer have to fill out forms or can 
     they expect to automatically receive their payment?
       Answer: The Secretary of Agriculture will decide exactly 
     how to administer the program and what will be required of 
     producers. However, I believe he can automatically pay 
     existing producers who participated in the earlier payment 
     programs and that only those new producers and those few who 
     have the option of updating their base period production 
     should need to fill out new applications.
       Question: How much should producers expect to receive?
       Answer: First, a producer's payment does not depend 
     directly on the number of cows on the producer's farm but on 
     the producer's eligible production as described above. A 
     producer can estimate his own payment by multiplying his 
     eligible production by the estimated payment rate of 65-cents 
     per hundredweight. An average milk cow produces 17,200 pounds 
     of milk per year. Using this average, producers can expect 
     about $112 per milk cow. A herd of 225 average milk cows will 
     reach the 3.9 million pound limit and receive the maximum 
     payment of about $25,000.

  Also included in the conference report is a cranberry relief package 
that provides assistance to cranberry growers who are suffering with 
record low prices. This year, my state of Wisconsin will lead the 
nation in cranberry production. The language in the conference report 
provides $20 million for direct cash payments to growers and language 
directing the USDA to purchase $30 million worth of cranberry products.
  The cranberry direct payments provision is similar to other market 
loss assistance provisions in the bill. In order to insure that the 
funds are equitably distributed in the market place, the provision 
includes a cap on payments that would be limited to not more than 1.6 
million pounds per separate farm unit, regardless of farm ownership.
  In recent weeks, the cranberry industry has been working very closely 
with USDA and the recipients of federal food distribution programs to 
support purchases of juice concentrate, frozen fruit, or other 
comparable high-concentration fruit products that will remove the 
highest quantities of surplus fruit from current inventory. The 
industry and USDA is working to ensure a nutritious and easy to use 
product available for the recipients of federal food distribution 
programs. I appreciate the close cooperation of the Department on this 
and urge them to move quickly to address this disastrous surplus 
situation through additional purchases of products containing high 
concentrations of cranberry products provided for in the bill.
  I close by reminding my colleagues that I support the conference 
report. I also express my sincere appreciation to Senator Cochran for 
his leadership, his fairness, and expertise in the many programs and 
accounts included in this bill. I thank Senator Cochran's subcommittee 
staff for all their work on this conference report. I urge all Senators 
to join me in support of this important conference report.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the status of the time and the 
allocation between both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 10 1/2 
minutes, and the Senator from Wisconsin has 2 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments that 
have been made by a number of Senators about the development of this 
legislation and the efforts we have made to negotiate an agreement with 
the House and bring back this conference report for final consideration 
by the Senate today.
  There have been some statements made on the floor today that I think 
require a response. There was some singling out of individual research 
projects by the distinguished Senator from Arizona as if these were 
pork barrel projects. One response has already been made, and that was 
by the distinguished Senator from Alabama as he talked about some of 
the specialty crops and specific agricultural and aquacultural 
activities in his State. He explained the importance of ongoing 
research initiatives that will help improve the opportunities for 
agricultural producers to grow those crops and engage in those 
agricultural and aquacultural pursuits, and to do so profitably, 
helping to guarantee safe and wholesome supplies of food and food 
products for people in that State and throughout the country.
  We have had a very difficult time in agriculture this year, and 
because of research, we are able to overcome some of those difficulties 
and provide hope that in these areas of particular stress in 
agriculture and aquaculture, we will be able to offer better days in 
the future.
  A considerable attempt and a determined attempt is made in this 
legislation to identify ways to help improve the opportunities for U.S. 
agricultural producers to stay in business, to deal with the problems 
of drought, of infestation of insects and pests, to deal with the 
problems of weeds and other threats to efficient operation and 
production of our agricultural lands.
  There is nothing wrong with the Government providing Federal funds to 
help identify better ways of dealing with these problems in 
agriculture.
  One other comment that particularly distresses me is the emphasis on 
criticizing the existing farm bill as if it is the reason farmers are 
having such a difficult time.
  I recall several years ago when we first realized that in the Asian 
economies they were getting to the point where they were no longer able 
to import from our country agricultural commodities in the quantities 
that they had in the past because of the economic crisis. Particularly 
countries such as Korea, Japan, and other Asian economies were 
suffering--the so-called ``tiger economies'' of Southeast Asia. And to 
hear today a statement that for several years in a row we have had to 
adopt agricultural disaster and economic assistance programs because of 
the Freedom to Farm Act. Have Senators forgotten some of the problems 
that our agricultural producers and exporters have had to overcome that 
had absolutely nothing to do with the Freedom to Farm Act but 
everything to do with a worldwide economic crisis? That is the main 
problem that agriculture had in the first 2 years of this existing farm 
bill.
  To hear some Senators today indicting, again, the Freedom to Farm 
bill for the results of this year's drought is another new stretch of 
the imagination and credibility of this institution. Senators know 
enough not to believe that.
  The Senator from Alabama was pointing out how in his State the 
drought problems are the worst in memory--and not just this year but 
add to the problems that occurred last year--and you understand how 
serious, how desperate the situation is in agriculture in Alabama this 
year, to cite one example. It has nothing to do with the Freedom to 
Farm Act.
  Many worked very hard to craft the farm bill of 1996, Democrats and 
Republicans in the Senate and in the House--of course, it was not 
unanimous. But they worked hard to develop the best possible 
legislation under which we could provide support and rules under which 
the Federal Government could make available incentives for production 
agriculture, stabilize prices, and have a predictable level of support 
from the Federal Government. The bill attempts to avoid the ups and 
downs, the whims, of one administration or the other, the vicissitudes 
of a Congress that is unpredictable at best on these matters. The bill 
prescribed well in advance, over a period of years, the level of 
assistance for commodity producers that were eligible for benefits--
that was the result of that negotiation in the legislation that was 
produced.
  And now to lay it all off on that, as if that is the reason for these 
difficulties, to me, goes too far and deserves a response. It ought to 
have a response. I am pointing out at least two instances where that 
indictment and that criticism is just not accurate, it is not supported 
by the facts, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this 
legislation.
  This legislation includes, however, $3.6 billion in additional 
assistance of an emergency nature to try to assist those who have had 
difficulties this year over and above those that were expected. Because 
of findings made by the Senate and the House and the administration, 
this justifies emergency

[[Page S10701]]

funding, and it is included in this legislation.
  So I am hopeful and I am confident that the Senate is going to 
recognize the legitimacy and the importance of adopting this conference 
report. It reflects a lot of hard work by members of our appropriations 
subcommittee that developed the legislation, working in a bipartisan 
fashion, and working with our colleagues in the other body after our 
bill was passed and we negotiated this conference report with them, to 
come up with the best possible work product under the circumstances 
that we find ourselves today.
  But no matter how much money we appropriate for research, for 
disaster assistance, for export assistance, trying to help stimulate 
our sales in overseas markets, we cannot solve all the problems of 
agriculture by the passage of this one bill. Everybody knows that. But 
it is a major and important step, and it will benefit a lot of American 
agricultural producers.
  There is also more in this bill than just production agriculture 
assistance, but it is an important aspect of this legislation. This is 
a $78 billion bill. Nearly $40 billion of the funds relates to 
agriculture, landowner assistance, research to try to help do the 
things you have to do to maintain efficiency, understand the new 
technologies, translate the research from the laboratory to the farm 
through extension programs so that we have the finest, the most 
efficient, the most dependable agricultural sector in the world. This 
bill achieves those goals.

  We also, at the same time, provide food safety programs, an 
inspection service that is fully funded, a food safety initiative that 
is fully funded at the request of the administration, to make sure that 
we have a wholesome supply of food, and it is fit for consumption by 
Americans, and it is reasonably priced.
  We achieve that goal in this legislation. There are many in our 
country who do not have the benefit of high incomes. We have low-income 
people who live in poverty areas who need food assistance. This 
legislation includes school lunch program and school breakfast program 
funding. It includes Women, Infants, and Children Program funding, Food 
Stamp Program funding, assistance to soup kitchens, to those who use 
surplus commodities to provide lunches and meals for people who cannot 
afford food, so that we do not have people who are out of work and out 
of food. This legislation provides that important benefit as well.
  So, on balance, this is a good bill. It deserves the support of the 
Senate. I hope all Senators will support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield our time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

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

                                NAYS--8

     Allard
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Kyl
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. 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.

                          ____________________