[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10946-S10947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAUTHORIZING AUTHORITY FOR THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO PAY COSTS
OF REMOVING COMMODITIES POSING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3230,
introduced earlier today by Senators Lugar and Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3230) to reauthorize the authority for the
Secretary of Agriculture to pay costs associated with removal
of commodities that pose a health or safety risk and to make
adjustments to certain child nutrition programs.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
grain standards reauthorization
Mr. HARKIN. The Grain Standards Act contains the Small Watershed
Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, legislation that enables the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide cost-share money for
local sponsors to rehabilitate dams that were built with funding from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Before approving a project, NRCS
will examine all options, including correcting damage or deterioration
of the structure, upgrading the structural measure to meet changed land
use conditions or safety needs within the watershed, and
decommissioning the structure. Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, is it your
understanding that even though NRCS must fully evaluate every
reasonable option, if a local sponsor does not wish to choose
decommissioning the local sponsor can reject that option if NRCS
presents it?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes. As with any of options for rehabilitation, the local
sponsor can reject NRCS' offer to provide cost-share for a particular
project. also, NRCS is never required to fund a project that it
believes is not justified.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I recognize that this Act is silent on the
requirements of a formal cost-benefit analysis. I would like to ask
you, Mr. Chairman, if it is your understanding that each project should
be completed using the most-effective option possible that also has the
fewest environmental costs, including the options of voluntary buy-outs
of at-risk structures, wetland restoration, dam decommissioning, and
dam removal?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes. Although the bill is silent on cost-benefit analysis,
it is expected that NRCS will follow its normal procedures including
following the ``Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines
for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.'' As part
of being fiscally and environmentally responsible, NRCS should look for
the most cost-effective solution with the best feasible environmental
results. Further, NRCS should not fund a project if the local sponsor
insists on a form of rehabilitation that does not meet these standards.
Mr. HARKIN. Under this Act, the Secretary will establish a system of
approving rehabilitation requests. As part of this process, Mr.
Chairman, is it correct that NRCS should give equal priority to local
sponsors projects regardless of the form of rehabilitation requested?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes. The system NRCS establishes for approving a
rehabilitation project should not rank projects based on the local
sponsor's choice of rehabilitation, as defined in the bill.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senate has passed a substantially similar version of
the Act. When the bill was reported by the Senate Agriculture Committee
our report embodied the Committee's understanding of how the provisions
of the bill should be carried out. Mr. Chairman, does that report still
embody our understanding of the interpretation of the Small Watershed
Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000?
[[Page S10947]]
Mr. LUGAR. Yes. Our report language should be used as legislative
history of interpreting and applying this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to
this bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3230) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 3230
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF
COMMODITIES THAT POSE A HEALTH OR SAFETY RISK.
Section 15(e) of the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and
WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 100-
237) is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 2. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN,
INFANTS, AND CHILDREN.
(a) Cost-of-Living Allowances for Members of Uniformed
Services.--Section 17(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking
``continental'' and inserting ``contiguous States of the''.
(b) Demonstration Project.--Effective October 1, 2000,
section 17(r)(1) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1786(r)(1)) is amended by striking ``at least 20 local
agencies'' and inserting ``not more than 20 local agencies''.
SEC. 3. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM.
(a) Technical Amendments.--Section 17 of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) is
amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 17.'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 17. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM.'';
and
(2) in subsection (a)(6)(C)(ii), by striking ``and'' at the
end.
(b) Exceptions to Hearing Requirements.--Section
17(d)(5)(D) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)(5)(D)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(D) Hearing.--An institution'' and
inserting the following:
``(D) Hearing.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), an
institution''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Exception for false or fraudulent claims.--
``(I) In general.--If a State agency determines that an
institution has knowingly submitted a false or fraudulent
claim for reimbursement, the State agency may suspend the
participation of the institution in the program in accordance
with this clause.
``(II) Requirement for review.--Prior to any determination
to suspend participation of an institution under subclause
(I), the State agency shall provide for an independent review
of the proposed suspension in accordance with subclause
(III).
``(III) Review procedure.--The review shall--
``(aa) be conducted by an independent and impartial
official other than, and not accountable to, any person
involved in the determination to suspend the institution;
``(bb) provide the State agency and the institution the
right to submit written documentation relating to the
suspension, including State agency documentation of the
alleged false or fraudulent claim for reimbursement and the
response of the institution to the documentation;
``(cc) require the reviewing official to determine, based
on the review, whether the State agency has established,
based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the
institution has knowingly submitted a false or fraudulent
claim for reimbursement;
``(dd) require the suspension to be in effect for not more
than 120 calendar days after the institution has received
notification of a determination of suspension in accordance
with this clause; and
``(ee) require the State agency during the suspension to
ensure that payments continue to be made to sponsored centers
and family and group day care homes meeting the requirements
of the program.
``(IV) Hearing.--A State agency shall provide an
institution that has been suspended from participation in the
program under this clause an opportunity for a fair hearing
on the suspension conducted in accordance with subsection
(e)(1).''.
(c) Statewide Demonstration Projects Involving Private For-
Profit Organizations Providing Nonresidential Day Care
Services.--Section 17(p)(3)(C) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(p)(3)(C)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (iii), by striking ``all families'' and
inserting ``all low-income families''; and
(2) in clause (iv), by striking ``made'' and inserting
``reported for fiscal year 1998''.
____________________