[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''.

                          ____________________