[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11060-S11075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Under the previous order, the 
Appropriations Committee is discharged from consideration of H.R. 2330 
and the Senate will proceed to its consideration.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2330) making appropriations for agriculture, 
     rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related 
     agencies programs for fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 
     and for other purposes.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 RECESS

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess for 30 minutes.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:31 p.m., recessed until 
3:01 p.m., and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer (Mr. Nelson of Florida).


                           Amendment No. 1969

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, pursuant to yesterday's unanimous consent 
agreement, I rise to offer the text of S. 1191 as reported by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee as a substitute amendment for H.R. 
2330, the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. The 
text of S. 1191 is at the desk and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr. 
     Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 1969.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate, the 
fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural 
development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. 
This bill was approved by the Appropriations Committee without dissent, 
and I hope it will receive the support of all Senators. I believe this 
bill strikes an appropriate balance of programs, consistent with the 
interests of Senators, to meet the needs of the farm sector, the 
environment, and rural America generally; nutrition assistance to our 
Nation's most vulnerable citizens; provide adequate resources to the 
Food and Drug Administration for protection of our food supply and 
other aspects of public health; and to support other national and 
international priorities.
  This bill provides $73.9 billion in new budget authority for both 
mandatory and discretionary programs under our subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, and is within our 302(b) allocation. This bill is $2.8 
billion below the level provided for fiscal year 2001, and is $78 
million below the President's request. Let me restate, this bill is 
below the President's request.
  Although this bill is $2.8 billion below the level provided last 
year, I should explain that the fiscal year 2001 bill included $3.6 
billion in emergency spending for natural disaster and market loss 
related assistance to farmers and rural communities. No emergency 
funding is provided in the bill now before the Senate, and when 
compared to the non-emergency spending for fiscal year 2001, we are 
providing an increase of approximately $850,000. That amount represents 
an increase of slightly more than 1 percent from the previous year.
  Before I go any further, I want to publicly thank my friend from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, ranking member on the Subcommittee, for 
his help and guidance. I also want to thank his staff: Rebecca Davies, 
minority clerk for the subcommittee, Martha Scott Poindexter, and 
Rachelle Schroder. Without their help and expertise, presentation of 
this bill to the Senate today would not have been possible. I owe a 
great deal of gratitude to Senator Cochran and his staff, as do all 
Senators.
  Mr. President, when someone refers to this bill simply as the 
``Agriculture'' appropriations bill, one might be left with the 
impression that it relates only to programs important to the farming 
community. While this bill does much to support our Nation's farmers, 
it also does much more. This bill provides substantial funding for 
agriculture research, including human nutrition research, 
biotechnology, energy alternatives, and many other important areas of 
inquiry. It also provides increases in conservation programs that 
protect our soil, water, and air resources, including examination of 
global change, and other critical aspects of environmental protection.
  This bill also supports rural communities through economic 
development programs and assistance for basic needs such as housing, 
electricity, safe drinking water and waste disposal systems, and to 
help move rural America into the information age by promoting new 
technologies in the area of telecommunications and internet services. 
More and more, Americans are seeking relief from the congestion and 
sprawl of urban centers, and with the proper tools, rural America holds 
great promise for viable job opportunity alternatives. Programs in this 
bill do much to help rural communities provide the infrastructure 
necessary to create those jobs.
  In addition, funding in this bill supports many nutrition and public 
health related programs. These include the food stamp, school lunch, 
and other nutrition assistance programs such as the Women, Infants, and 
Children program--WIC. This bill also provides funding for the Food and 
Drug Administration, which includes an increase for the Office of 
Generic Drugs to help make lower cost medications available to 
Americans as quickly as possible. Funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration, and other agencies, included in this bill will also 
help guarantee that the food Americans eat is not only the most 
nutritious and affordable in the world, but that it is also the safest.

  Assistance in this bill does not stop at our shores. This bill also 
includes a number of international programs such as Public Law 480, 
which provide humanitarian food assistance to people in dire need 
around the world. This bill also supports international trade through a 
number of programs designed to open, maintain, and expand markets for 
U.S. production overseas.
  Before I describe some of the specific program included in this bill, 
let me offer a few observations in view of recent events. World 
headlines this past year have described the devastation to the rural 
sector of the United Kingdom and other areas where foot and mouth 
disease outbreaks have raged out of control. Should such outbreaks 
occur in this country, the effect to the farm sector, and the general 
economy, would be staggering. Thankfully, this country has a strong set 
of safeguards to keep our shores safe from problems such as foot and 
mouth disease. But our safeguards are only as strong as the weakest 
part.
  More recently, we all witnessed the horrific events of September 11. 
Suddenly, we were reminded that the significant concerns were held, in 
regard to accidental introductions of exotic pests and disease, may 
pale in comparison to what could befall this country by design. This is 
true for protection of our food supply, and in order to ensure that our 
public health system has the resources for immediate response to any 
threat at any time.
  Last week, events occurring in the United States Senate, itself, 
reminded us of the need to keep strong our nation's defenses in regard 
to public health and safety. This bill, with jurisdiction for the food 
and Drug Administration, the Food Safety Inspection

[[Page S11061]]

Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, numerous 
research agencies, and other vital parts of government, place this bill 
directly on the front line for safety and security for the American 
people.
  Our determination is strong, and our commitment is steadfast. This 
subcommittee is engaged in the struggle against terror, ignorance, and 
injustice, and we will prevail.
  We must stay ever vigilant, especially in view of our growing global 
economy, and global exposure, to keep USDA, the FDA, and other relevant 
agencies alert and well prepared to meet the prospect of invasion by 
foreign pests and disease or threats conveyed by any other medium. We 
give high deference to items important to national defense, and we must 
not lose sight that many of the challenges to our border inspectors, 
animal health experts, public health officials, and others play as 
important a role in our national defense as do those in our armed 
forces.

  We on this subcommittee have engaged Secretary Veneman, Secretary 
Thompson, and others in an ongoing dialogue so that we can do our best 
to understand what resources the various departments and agencies under 
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee require. We will continue these 
discussions as the administration allocates supplemental resources 
already provided by the Congress, and as we consider further 
appropriations actions.
  As I stated at the outset, I believe this bill provides a proper 
balance of priorities within the limitation of resources provided to 
this subcommittee. I would like to highlight a few of the programs 
supported by this bill:
  This bill provides $2.305 billion for agricultural research 
activities. This represents an increase of nearly $200 million above 
the fiscal year 2001 level, and includes programs of the Agricultural 
Research Service--the USDA-in house research agency; the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which supports the 
long-standing State and Federal partnership in research and extension 
activities; and other research agencies of the Department of 
Agriculture. This appropriated amount is in addition to the $120 
million also available through the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems.
  Agricultural production in this country is without parallel anywhere 
in the history of the world. Research has made that possible, and is 
one of the most important investments we can make to assure that 
American farmers continue that success and pass it on to the American 
consumer. This bill continues important support for those efforts.
  Regulatory and marketing activities at the Department of Agriculture 
are strongly supported by this bill, which includes $1.445 billion for 
food safety inspection, animal and plant health safety programs, 
oversight of marketing transparency and fairness, and other activities. 
This level reflects an increase of nearly $100 million above the 
previous year.
  This bill also includes a number of programs that directly support 
the farm sector. USDA farm credit serves the need of farmers in the 
acquisition and operations of farms all across this country. It should 
be noted, that many of today's farmers are nearing retirement age and 
without USDA farm credit programs, it would be very difficult for many 
young farmers to acquire the capital necessary to enter into this 
important occupation of high up-front costs, and high risk. Farm 
programs in this bill including farm credit, mediation, and the cost of 
supporting local Farm Service Agency offices, are funded at $1.487 
billion, an increase of more than $200 million from last year.
  Americans do not only benefit from the abundance and quality of 
products grown on the farm, they also benefit from the wise land 
stewardship practiced by farmers and ranchers. This bill provides $980 
million for conservation programs. This funding, in large part, 
provides support to Natural Resource Conservation Service staff, who 
provide conservation technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, rural 
communities, and others at the local level. This bill also includes a 
new account for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which will 
provide assistance to repair the many water conservation structures 
located throughout the country that, due to age and condition, now pose 
a risk to life and property.
  This funding is also in addition to other conservation programs such 
as the Conservation Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, which have been authorized as direct spending 
measures under the 1996 farm bill. This bill also allows the Secretary 
of Agriculture to transfer funds from a number of mandatory programs to 
provide technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program in a 
way that does not detract from USDA's ability to provide discretionary 
conservation assistance for other ongoing natural resource needs.

  It has often been noted that little of the general economic 
prosperity of the last decade made its way to rural America. This bill 
provides $2.794 billion for rural development programs. This is an 
increase of $318 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. Of this 
amount, slightly more than $1 billion is for the Rural Community 
Advancement Program, which includes the rural water and waste water 
loan and grants program, and is an increase of $243 million from last 
year's level.
  This bill also includes $35.8 billion for domestic food programs, the 
largest single area of spending in this bill. These programs include 
the Food Stamp Program and Child Nutrition Programs, such as the School 
Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. In addition, this bill provides 
$4.247 billion for the WIC Program. This amount is an increase of $204 
million from last year's level and $110 million above the amount 
requested by the President.
  In addition to support of domestic programs, funding in this bill 
also helps the United States meet international challenges both in the 
area of promoting free trade, and our moral obligations to provide 
humanitarian assistance. This bill provides $1.128 billion for foreign 
assistance and related programs, which is an increase of $38 million 
from the fiscal year 01 level. This amount includes an appropriation of 
$850 million for Public Law 480 Title II food donations, which is an 
increase of $15 million.
  Finally, this bill provides $1.217 billion for the Food and Drug 
Administration, an increase of $119 million from last year's level. The 
Food and Drug Administration provides a vital service to all Americans 
in helping protect our food and blood supplies, to ensure the safety 
and availability of effective drugs and medical devices, and other 
activities that affect American lives and health on a daily basis.
  This overview presents only some highlights of programs included in 
this appropriations bill. I believe we have a good bill and I want to 
again thank my friend, and ranking member, Senator Cochran, for his 
invaluable help in putting this bill together. I hope all Senators will 
support this bill.
  I believe that we can, and we should, move quickly to pass this bill 
in the Senate. I know that in years past, controversial subjects have 
come up when this bill has been on the floor, resulting in a number of 
days being spent on its consideration. I hope that will not be the case 
this year due, in part, to the recent tragic events which have occurred 
over the past six weeks, and the high state of urgency now before this 
Congress on other matters relating to a proper response to those 
events.
  I hope that we can follow the lead of Senator Dorgan when the 
Treasury and general government bill was on the floor earlier. Senator 
Dorgan pointed out that there were certain amendments he had planned to 
offer which were of great importance to him, but due to their 
controversial nature, he deferred introduction of those amendments in 
order to ease the passage of that legislation. He was successful, and 
that appropriations bill passed the Senate in one day.
  I, too, have amendments I had considered offering on subjects 
important to me, the people of Wisconsin, and all Americans. However, I 
also have chosen not to raise them at this time, and I hope all 
Senators will refrain, as Senator Dorgan and I have done on our 
respective bills, to avoid any subjects that would result in 
controversial, divisive, and lengthy debate. I do not mean to suggest 
that any Senator should not exercise any right he or she has, if the 
sentiment for that action is strong, but I do hope that consideration 
will be given to refrain from actions that will unnecessarily delay or 
make difficult the passage of this bill.

[[Page S11062]]

  Mr. President, at this time I turn to the Senator from Mississippi, 
Mr. Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend from 
Wisconsin in presenting this bill to the Senate today. I first want to 
thank him for his hard work and the work of his staff in helping to 
draft the bill. It was a pleasure to work with him during the hearings 
when we heard from administration officials and others about the budget 
requests of the President and the needs of the Department of 
Agriculture and the agencies that are funded in this legislation.
  I am pleased to report that the amounts of discretionary spending 
recommended in this bill are consistent with the subcommittee's 
discretionary spending allocations under the Budget Act. In way of 
summary of some of the increases that are provided, I thought the 
Senate might be interested to know that the bill provides additional 
funding over last year's levels to enhance food safety activities, 
quarantine inspection activities, and pest and disease control, 
including increased vigilance against the entry into this country of 
foreign animal diseases.
  The amount recommended for the Agricultural Research Service, for 
example, will provide enhanced funding for a number of priority 
research needs including emerging plant and animal diseases, genomics, 
control of invasive weeds and insects, and the development of bio-based 
products from agricultural commodities.
  In the case of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service, funding increases are recommended for minor crop 
pest management and sustainable agricultural research.
  The Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources and Conservation 
Service has total funding recommended, which includes increases for 
conservation operations. These are over and above the President's 
request for resource conservation and development programs and a 
watershed rehabilitation program.
  The Foreign Agricultural Service has an increase provided that will 
enable that agency to strengthen its market intelligence capabilities 
and to better address technical trade issues, particularly those 
related to food safety and biotechnology.
  I am pleased that the bill contains an increase for the Rural 
Community Advancement Program, which is essential to supporting safe 
drinking water supplies and waste disposal systems for rural Americans.
  Let me point out also that in the case of the nutrition programs, the 
total appropriation recommended for the WIC Program is $204 million 
more than the 2001 fiscal year level, and it is $110 million more than 
the level requested by the President for this next fiscal year, 2002. 
The increase was based on more recent data on projected program costs 
and participation levels at the time the Senate reported the bill. But 
since then, there are indications that the WIC caseload has continued 
to increase with the steady increase in unemployment and that 
additional funding may be required. I am committed to reexamine this 
issue in conference to ensure that WIC is adequately funded for fiscal 
year 2002.
  Let me also say that in the case of the Food and Drug Administration, 
the President requested additional appropriations to cover pay 
increases, to prevent mad cow disease, to enhance import inspections, 
to enhance adverse events reporting, and food safety activities. This 
bill recommends the full amount requested for these activities and also 
provides increased funding for generic drugs, orphan products grants, 
dietary supplements, and gene therapy tracking.
  Food safety continues to be a very high priority of this committee. 
The bill provides the funds necessary to ensure that American consumers 
continue to have the safest food supply in the world. Not only does 
this bill provide increased funds required for meat and poultry 
inspection activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, it 
increases funding for food safety research and for FDA's food safety 
activities.
  So the bill accommodates increased funding to meet expected higher 
WIC participation levels, to control foreign animal diseases and pests, 
to provide rural Americans access to affordable housing and a safe 
water supply, and to protect the safety of the Nation's food supply. It 
is essential for us to consider this expeditiously so we can get this 
bill to conference with the House and on to the President for his 
signature.
  I think Senators should be aware that we are continuing to assess 
supplemental funding needs of various programs and activities included 
in this bill as a consequence of the terrorist attacks on our Nation.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, I am pleased to join my good friend from 
Wisconsin in presenting for the Senate's consideration today the fiscal 
year 2002 Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and related agencies appropriations bill.
  This bill, as recommended to the Senate, provides fiscal year 2002 
funding for all programs and activities of the United States Department 
of Agriculture (with the exception of the Forest Service which is 
funded by the Interior appropriations bill), the Food and Drug 
Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
  As reported, the bill recommends total new budget authority for 
fiscal year 2002 of $73.9 billion. This is $803 million more than the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level, excluding emergency appropriations, and 
$78 million less than the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request.
  Just over seventy-eight percent of the total $73.9 billion 
recommended by this bill is for mandatory appropriations over which the 
Appropriations Committee has no effective control. The spending levels 
for these programs are governed by authorizing statutes. These include 
not only the payments to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
net realized losses and fund the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 
but also appropriations for the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition 
Programs.
  Roughly 22 percent of the total appropriations recommended by the 
bill is for discretionary programs and activities. Including 
congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-year spending 
actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $16.1 
billion in both budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002. 
These amounts are consistent with the subcommittee's discretionary 
spending allocations under the Budget Act.
  I would like to take a few moments to summarize the bill's major 
funding recommendations. For the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS), appropriations of $716 million are recommended, $21 million 
more than the fiscal year 2001 level. This provides additional funding 
to enhance food safety activities and to cover pay and benefit cost 
increases necessary to support the FSIS workforce, including 
approximately 7,600 meat and poultry inspectors.
  For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service responsible for 
agricultural quarantine inspection activities and pest and disease 
control--including increased vigilance against the entry into this 
country of foreign animal disease, such as foot-and-mouth and ``mad 
cow'' disease--$608 million is recommended. This is an increase of $64 
million from the 2001 level.
  Appropriations for USDA headquarters operations and for other 
agriculture marketing and regulatory programs are approximately $52 
million more than the fiscal year 2001 appropriations levels. Included 
in this increase is $19 million for information technology investments 
in support of the Department's Service Center Modernization Initiative; 
and additional $5 million to support the Department of Agriculture's 
buildings and facilities and rental payments' requirements; and a $10 
million increase for the costs of the Census of Agriculture.
  For programs needed to meet the credit needs of farmers, the bill 
funds an estimated $3.9 billion total loan level, $800 million more 
than last year's level. The amount recommended includes $1.1 billion 
for farm ownership loans and $2.6 billion for farm operating loans.
  Total appropriations of $1.2 billion are recommended for salaries and 
expenses of the Farm Service Agency. This is $121 million more than the 
2001 level and the same as the President's budget request. The 
additional funding

[[Page S11063]]

will support Farm Service Agency staffing levels essential to keep pace 
with heavy county office workload demands due to a weakened farm 
economy.
  The bill provides total appropriations of $2.1 billion for 
agriculture research, education, and extension activities. Included in 
this amount is an increase of $26 million from fiscal year 2001 for 
Agriculture Research Service (ARS) buildings and facilities; an 
increase of $108 million of research activities of the ARS; and a $40 
million increase in funding for the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service.
  The amount recommended for the Agricultural Research Service will 
continue support for essential ongoing research activities and provide 
enhanced funding for a number of priority research needs, including 
those focused on emerging exotic plant and animal diseases, genomics, 
control of invasive weeds and insects, and the development of biobased 
products from agricultural commodities.
  The recommended funding for the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service includes a $1.4 million reduction 
below the fiscal year 2001 level for special research grants; increases 
of $1.0 million for minor crop pest management and $3.8 million for 
sustainable agriculture research and education; and total funding of 
$137 million, a $31.2 million increase, for the National Research 
Initiative competitive grants program. Appropriations for formula 
programs, including the Smith-Lever, Hatch Act, and McIntire-Stennis 
programs, are maintained at the 2001 funding levels.
  For conservation programs administered by USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, total funding of $980 million is provided, $73 
million more than the 2001 level and $52 million more than the 
President's request. Included in this amount is $802 million for 
conservation operations, $48 million for the resource conservation and 
development program, $10 million for a new watershed rehabilitation 
program, and $7.8 million for the Forestry Incentives Program.
  USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service is funded at a program level of 
$126 million, $6 million more than the fiscal year 2001 level and the 
same as the budget request. The increase provided will enable the 
agency to strengthen its market intelligence capabilities overseas and 
to better address technical trade issues, particularly those related to 
food safety and biotechnology.
  In addition, total appropriations of $1 billion are recommended for 
the Public Law 480 program, $31 million more than the fiscal year 2001 
and budget request levels. This includes $159.3 million for Title I 
credit sales, and $850 million for donations of humanitarian food 
assistance overseas under Title II of the program.
  The bill also provides total appropriations of $2.8 billion for rural 
economic and community development programs, along with a total loan 
authorization level of $10 billion. Included in this amount is $1 
billion for the Rural Community Advancement Program essential to 
supporting safe drinking water supplies and waste disposal systems for 
rural Americans; $47 million for the Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service; first-time funding for rural broadband telecommunications and 
television loans; and $42 million to support a total $4.6 billion 
program level for rural electric and telecommunications loans.

  In addition, the bill devotes additional resources to those programs 
which provide affordable, save, and decent housing for low-income 
individuals and families living in rural America. Estimated rural 
housing loan authorizations funded by this bill total $4.5 billion, a 
net increase of $32 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. Included 
in this amount is $4.2 billion for section 502 low-income housing 
direct and guaranteed loans and $114 million for section 515 rental 
housing loans. In addition, $709 million is included for the rental 
assistance program. This is $15 million more than the budget request to 
provide sufficient funds to meet contract renewal requirements, and $30 
million more than the 2001 appropriations level.
  Appropriations totaling $35.8 billion, just over 48 percent of the 
total $73.9 billion recommended by the bill, will support our nation's 
nutrition assistance programs. This includes $10.1 billion for child 
nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs; 
$4.2 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC); $140 million for the commodity assistance 
program; $151 million for the needy family and elderly feeding food 
donations programs; and $21.1 billion for the food stamp program.
  The total appropriation recommended for the WIC program is $204 
million more than the 2001 level and $110 million more than the level 
requested by the President for fiscal year 2002. The increase 
recommended was based on more recent data on projected program costs 
and participation levels at the time the Senate reported the bill. 
However, since then, there are indications that WIC caseload has 
continued to increase with the steady rise in unemployment and that 
additional funding may be required. I am committed to reexamine this 
issue in conference to ensure that WIC is adequately funded for fiscal 
year 2002.
  For those independent agencies funded by the bill, the committee 
provides total appropriations of $1.3 billion, $122 million more than 
the 2001 level. Included in this amount is $70.4 million for the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and $1.2 billion for the Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA). The bill also establishes a limitation of 
$36.7 million on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration.
  For salaries and expenses of the FDA, the bill recommends a total 
increase of $129 million from the 2001 appropriations level. The 
President requested additional appropriations to cover pay cost 
increases; to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or ``mad 
cow'' disease); to enhance import coverage and inspections; to increase 
the protection of human subjects in clinical trials; to cover 
relocation costs and begin the acquisition of a new financial 
information system; and to enhance adverse events reporting and food 
safety activities. The bill recommends the full amount requested for 
these activities, and also provides increased funding for generic 
drugs, orphan product grants, dietary supplements, and gene therapy 
tracking.
  Food safety continues to be a high priority of this committee. This 
bill, as recommended to the Senate, provides the funds necessary to 
ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food supply 
in the world. Not only does this bill provide increased funds required 
for meat and poultry inspection activities of the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, it increases funding for food safety research and 
for FDA's food safety activities.
  Mr. President, again, only 22 percent of the total 
funding recommended by this bill is for discretionary programs subject 
to annual control through the appropriations process. As I indicated 
earlier, this bill accommodates increased funding to meet expected 
higher WIC participation levels, to control foreign animal diseases and 
pests, to provide rural Americans access to affordable housing and a 
safe water supply. To protect the safety of the Nation's food supply, 
and many other pressing program needs.

  Mr. President, this bill was passed by the House of Representatives 
on July 11, 2001. It was reported to the Senate by the Committee on 
Appropriations on July 18, 2001. Appropriations for programs and 
activities covered by the bill are now being provided through a 
continuing resolution. It is essential that the Senate complete its 
consideration of this bill so that we can conference it with the House 
and get a bill to the President.
  At the same time we work to complete action on the regular 
appropriations bill, Senators should be aware that we are continuing to 
assess the supplemental funding needs of various programs and 
activities included in this bill as a consequence of the terrorist 
attacks on our Nation.
  Let me close by thanking my staff members who have been identified by 
Senator Kohl. I also thank his staff. We worked together in a spirit of 
bipartisanship, to be sure that the needs and interests of all Senators 
that have been brought to our attention are taken under serious 
consideration. I hope we have been able to meet the needs that have 
been pointed out to the committee during our work on this bill. We are 
prepared to defend this bill.

[[Page S11064]]

  There are some suggested amendments about which we have heard. As a 
matter of fact, we have a list about two pages long. Most of these are 
acceptable, I am happy to say, but there are a few that are not. I hope 
Senators who do have amendments that we have indicated we will not be 
able to support will refrain from offering them so we can get on to 
final passage of the bill and move this legislation along to the 
President for his signature.
  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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Cochran 
for their extraordinary cooperation and leadership on this Agriculture 
appropriations bill which funds the commodity and income support 
programs for farmers. It funds conservation programs, crop insurance, 
regulatory programs ensuring market competitiveness, rural development 
initiatives, value-added projects, agricultural research and security 
priorities, trade promotion initiatives, food safety, drug and medical 
services, and nutritional programs administered by the Department of 
Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. This bill contains 
$74.121 billion for these imperative programs which benefit all 
Americans.
  There is a lot of focus obviously here on farmers and ranchers, 
understandably so. Over half of the funding for these programs, in 
fact, goes for nutritional programs which benefit particularly low-
income people as well as students all over America.
  This important appropriations legislation, of course, is separate 
from the farm bill debate which we hope to have on the floor of the 
Senate this year. The current farm bill expires next year. It is our 
hope to have a new farm bill in place--perhaps this year but certainly 
early on next year if this year it is not possible. It will be 
critically important that the Congress capitalize upon the resources 
that are provided in this appropriations bill and in the budget 
resolution to ensure farmers, ranchers, and rural communities that 
they, in fact, have an opportunity to prosper and to compete in the 
years ahead.
  I am proud to serve on the Agriculture Subcommittee which crafted 
this product which has come to us in such an excellent bipartisan 
fashion. This Agriculture appropriations bill provides very timely 
funding for the Department of Agriculture's guaranteed and direct loan 
programs for farmers and ranchers, as well as beginning operators.
  It provides almost $4 million for State mediation grants. This is an 
area that has been of particular concern to me because of multiple 
years of income stress in farm country.
  We have needed less litigation and more coming together to try to 
devise ways for family farmers and ranchers to have an opportunity to 
stay on the farm and to pay their debts but to do so outside of long, 
protracted legal proceedings. The mediation grants program has been a 
proven success. It has now been reauthorized through the year 2005 
because of legislation I authored last year allowing agricultural 
producers to sort through their disputes with creditors and with USDA 
agencies without costly litigation.
  Additionally, this legislation provides funding for our ongoing 
conservation efforts and programs that compensate farmers while 
preventing soil erosion and providing valuable habitat for wildlife. 
This Senate bill provides about $985 million for discretionary 
conservation programs administered by the Department of Agriculture--
nearly $30 million more than is contained in our counterpart in the 
other body, the House of Representatives.
  Agricultural research extension and education is another winner in 
this bill. Those programs are central to a strong production in the 
agricultural industry in my home State of South Dakota and across the 
Nation.
  The Senate bill contains $2.3 billion for four USDA agencies to 
support these activities. Moreover, our bill includes over $1 billion 
for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
which is $32 million more than the House bill. Many new value-added and 
bioenergy research projects that benefit farmers, and which will 
benefit our Nation ultimately, are funded through these programs 
carried out by our land grant universities all over the United States, 
including specifically South Dakota State University.
  Protecting our Nation's crops, livestock, and overall food and fiber 
system from pests, diseases, and new bioterrorist threats is, again, 
one of the issues that is addressed in this key legislation.
  Given the recent and very real bioterrorist attacks on the people of 
the United States, including in this very Capitol complex, I am also 
concerned that our Nation's food and fiber systems may be vulnerable to 
bioterrorism. A host of factors make our crop, livestock, and food 
supplies potentially susceptible to the introduction of a bioterror 
threat, such as livestock disease, crop fungus, or foodborne illness. 
Our research facilities and land grant colleges are in great need of 
emergency funding to boost security and accelerate research to protect 
our agricultural industry and to protect our Nation as a whole. This 
bill provides appropriate funding levels for these facilities given the 
timing of committee action, but we may need to consider additional 
emergency funding to boost security and research in these important 
labs.
  Second, our border inspections need to be dramatically increased, and 
greater security needs to be placed on imports of commodities, 
livestock, carcasses, food ingredients, and ready-to-eat food items. 
Less than 1 percent of imported food currently undergoes inspection by 
Federal officials. Given the new set of circumstances that we face 
regarding anthrax and bioterror, this must change, and it needs to 
change with great urgency.
  Additionally, many of the major livestock feeding and processing 
areas are concentrated in certain regions of our Nation. The 
introduction of a biosecurity threat such as foot and mouth disease 
could, in fact, spread rapidly in these areas and would create 
horrendous problems for the livestock health and economic viability.
  Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, Federal agencies, including 
USDA, APHIS, FSIS, Customs, HHS, and the Food and Drug Administration, 
responsible for protecting our food and fiber system do not adequately 
coordinate their efforts, nor do they effectively communicate among 
each other or with the agricultural industry or the public. Therefore, 
I believe it is going to be imperative that we establish a crisis 
communications and education strategy with respect to bioterrorist 
threats to our food supply.
  My good friend and colleague, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, and I are 
working on legislation which we believe complements and coordinates the 
efforts I have referred to here. And the funding made available through 
this legislation, in fact, will be an important part of that overall 
strategy.
  I believe this bill takes significant steps to boost current efforts 
to begin new initiatives to protect American agriculture from harm. I 
thank the chairman and the ranking member in particular for that 
effort.
  Now more than ever, ensuring economic security in rural America means 
that emphasis has to be placed upon initiatives that serve to enhance 
the well-being of rural communities throughout our Nation. Rural 
development programs within USDA target financial loan and grant 
resources to value-added agricultural projects, telecommunications, and 
broadband services, telemedicine, distance learning, rule housing, and 
rural electric systems.
  The Senate bill devotes almost $2.8 billion to rural development. It 
is a great amount of investment to these important programs. Again, 
these are programs that will make the difference literally between 
communities that prosper and communities that die away and that wither 
away in our rural development programs. This legislation provides $300 
million more for this array of rural development initiatives than is 
found in the legislation of our counterpart, the House of 
Representatives.
  So in area after area, I believe the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee 
and the

[[Page S11065]]

Appropriations Committee as a whole have done very well for our Nation, 
for our farmers and ranchers, for our consumers, for the economic 
vitality of the entire fabric of our country. I applaud the 
bipartisanship and the thoughtful work that went into the production of 
this appropriations bill.
  It is my hope that we will reach an opportunity for final passage on 
this bill still today. It is an excellent piece of legislation. I 
applaud all who participated and worked so hard to create this quality 
piece of appropriations legislation.
  I yield back, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


               Amendments Nos. 1970 Through 1975, En Bloc

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, at this time I have a series of amendments 
which I send to the desk that are technical in nature and have the 
approval of the ranking member. These amendments are offered on behalf 
of the managers of the bill. They are: An amendment regarding 
conditions for transfers of funds; an amendment regarding extraneous 
language in the 1994 Endowment Fund account; an amendment regarding 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities; an amendment regarding 
rural utilities programs; an amendment regarding distance learning and 
telemedicine; and an amendment regarding administration of rural 
utility programs.
  I offer this series of amendments en bloc, and I urge their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr. 
     Cochran, proposes amendments numbered 1970 through 1975, en 
     bloc.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are adopted 
en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1970 through 1975) were agreed to en bloc, as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 1970

         (Purpose: To modify conditions for transfers of funds)

       On page 5, line 16, strike ``in the event an agency within 
     the Department should require modification of space needs,''.
       On page 5, line 21, after ``appropriation,'' insert ``to 
     cover the costs of new or replacement space for such 
     agency,''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1971

   (Purpose: To strike extraneous language from the Native American 
                      Institutions Endowment Fund)

       On page 15, strike all beginning with ``: Provided,'' on 
     line 20 down through and including ``purposes'' on line 24.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1972

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the rural empowerment zones 
               and enterprise communities grants program)

       On page 47, after ``1997'' at the end of line 2, insert the 
     following: ``and Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated 
     and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1973

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the Rural Utilities Service 
  Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account)

       On page 47, after ``1936'' on line 20, insert ``(7 U.S.C. 
     935 and 936)'':
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1974

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the Rural Utilities Service 
              Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program)

       On page 49, after ``for'' at the end of line 6, insert 
     ``the continuation of a pilot project for'' and also on page 
     49, after ``Provided'' on line 11, insert ``further''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1975

(Purpose: To include omitted language regarding administration of rural 
                          utilities programs)

       On page 78, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service shall 
     use the authorities provided in the Rural Electrification Act 
     of 1936 to finance the acquisition of existing generation, 
     transmission and distribution systems and facilities serving 
     high cost, predominantly rural areas by entities capable of 
     and dedicated to providing or improving service in such areas 
     in an efficient and cost effective manner.

  Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of all of our 
colleagues that this, hopefully, is the last bill we will consider this 
week, and when we finish this bill we could look forward to being out 
for the balance of the week. So when that occurs depends upon my 
colleagues and their willingness to come to this Chamber to bring any 
amendments to our attention they may have.
  At this time, I am aware of one amendment that I know is going to 
come to the floor. I am not aware of what other amendments may come to 
the floor, but whatever they are, it is clearly in our common interest 
to get those amendments over here at this time so we can consider them.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. I say to my two friends, the managers of the bill, Senator 
Daschle has announced that if we finish this bill tonight, we will not 
be in tomorrow. If we do not finish the bill tonight, we will be in 
tomorrow with votes.
  We do not have the ability to communicate the way we normally do by 
running hotlines because some people cannot be in their office to 
receive them. So this is the notice that everyone will get: People have 
to come over and present their amendments or the managers will have no 
alternative but to move forward on the bill.
  We want to be as agreeable, as considerate to everyone as we can, but 
there is an effort to complete this bill as soon as we can.
  So, I repeat, this is everyone's notice that if you have an 
amendment, this is the time to offer it. If you cannot come over 
physically, you have to call the cloakroom and tell them you have an 
amendment and give the subject matter of the amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. I see my colleagues on the floor are ready to proceed. 
I defer to my senior colleague, Senator Levin, from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 1978

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senators Murray, Cantwell, Stabenow, Schumer, Leahy, 
Snowe, Collins, Clinton, Kerry, Jeffords, and Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Ms. 
     Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, 
     Mr. Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Jeffords, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 1978.

  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide market loss assistance for apple producers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE FOR APPLE PRODUCERS.

       (a) Assistance Available.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation, in an amount not to exceed 
     $150,000,000, to make payments, as soon as practicable after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, to apple producers to 
     provide relief for the loss of markets during the 2000 crop 
     year.
       (b) Payment Quantity.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the payment 
     quantity of apples for which the producers on a farm are 
     eligible for payments under this section shall be equal to 
     the quantity of the 2000 crop of apples produced by the 
     producers on the farm.
       (2) Maximum quantity.--The payment quantity of apples for 
     which the producers on a farm are eligible for payments under 
     this section shall not exceed 5,000,000 pounds of apples 
     produced on the farm.
       (c) Limitations.--Subject to subsection (b)(2), the 
     Secretary shall not establish a payment limitation, or gross 
     income eligibility limitation, with respect to payments made 
     under this section.

[[Page S11066]]

       (d) Applicability.--This section applies only with respect 
     to the 2000 crops of apples and producers of that crop.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will assist apple farmers 
who have suffered terrible losses in our Nation from fire blight and 
other weather-related and economic damage. It has broad bipartisan 
cosponsorship. In our State alone, apple farmers have suffered huge 
crop losses and damage due to several hailstorms which caused thousands 
and thousands of acres of apple trees to be affected by fire blight. 
Fire blight is a bacterium that has destroyed fruit trees across 
Michigan and across the country. Experts at Michigan State University 
anticipate that a quarter of our apple farmers have trees that are 
afflicted by fire blight and that then makes them susceptible to 
weather-related disasters. Many of our best apple producers have had 
disastrously reduced production and decreased revenues for a number of 
years. This amendment would provide vital assistance, not just in our 
State of Michigan but for apple producers who suffered losses due to 
fire blight or other weather-related disasters.
  Much of the loss to apple growers is done to weather-related 
disasters, but unfair trade practices have also played an important 
role in this decline of the apple industry in this country. The 
Department of Commerce ruled in 1999 that China had dumped apple juice 
concentrate in the United States and that dumping is still causing the 
suffering of farmers and apple growers because of those unfair trade 
practices.
  The unfair trade practices could not have come at a worse time for 
our Nation's apple growers who, according to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, have lost about $1.5 billion over the past 5 years, 
including $500 million last year alone, due to a variety of factors 
including diseases such as fire blight.
  In addition to the large number of colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who have cosponsored this amendment, the United States Apple 
Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation recognize the dire 
situation facing our apple growers, and both of these organizations 
have written to a number of Senators, voicing their support for this 
much-needed relief.
  I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins and Senator Levin: The American Farm 
     Bureau Federation supports your efforts to add $150 million 
     for market loss assistance for apple producers to the FY02 
     agriculture spending bill.
       This is the third consecutive year that apple growers have 
     had to survive low prices caused by a flood of imports. 
     Without assistance, American producers will continue to go 
     out of business, the jobs the industry supports will be lost, 
     and the safe and reliable domestic supply of fruit will 
     disappear.
       Many in Congress already understand and support the need 
     for assistance. The Senate Agriculture Committee passed an 
     agriculture emergency package that contained $150 million for 
     apple producers earlier this summer. Unfortunately, apple 
     producers were left out of the final package that was signed 
     into law.
       The FY 02 spending bill passed by the House contains $150 
     million in emergency assistance for apple producers. Farm 
     Bureau believes that apple assistance should also be included 
     in the Senate bill. Inclusion in both bills will assure that 
     the assistance will reach producers quickly.
       Thank you for your work on behalf of our nation's apple 
     producers. Farm Bureau stands ready to assist you in your 
     effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       U.S. Apple Association,

                                      McLean, VA, October 1, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: The U.S. Apple Association (US Apple) 
     strongly supports your efforts to garner $150 million in 
     much-needed emergency market loss assistance for America's 
     apple growers.
       Our nation's apple growers are experiencing the worst 
     economic losses in more than 70 years, having lost $1.5 
     billion since 1996 and $500 million last year. Unfairly 
     priced imports of apple juice concentrate, excessive 
     regulatory costs, stagnant domestic consumption, food retail 
     consolidation, subsidized foreign competition, diminished 
     exports and global overproduction have all contributed to the 
     devastating economic conditions confronting apple producers.
       Apple growers have invested heavily in efforts to reverse 
     their economic plight, and are not seeking establishment of a 
     permanent direct assistance program. As losses continue to 
     mount, however, as many as 30 percent of America's apple 
     growers will lose their farms without this much needed ad-hoc 
     assistance.
       As you know, the House-approved agricultural appropriations 
     bill for fiscal 2002 includes $150 million in market loss 
     assistance for apple growers. The Senate Agriculture 
     Committee also approved $150 million in assistance for apple 
     growers as part of its farm relief package. Unfortunately, 
     apple producers were left out of the final farm aid bill that 
     was signed into law this past summer.
       Thus, we strongly endorse your efforts to include this 
     desperately needed emergency assistance in the Senate's 
     fiscal 2002 agricultural appropriations bill.
       On behalf of the 9,000 apple growers and more than 500 
     individual apple businesses we represent, USApple looks 
     forward to working with you in support of your efforts to 
     assist America's apple growers.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Kraig R. Naasz,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____


U.S. Apple Association: Emergency Market Loss Assistance for America's 
                             Apple Growers

       The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributed roughly $100 
     million in market loss payments to 7,500 apple growers 
     nationwide, as provided by the 106th Congress to offset 1998 
     and 1999 crop losses. The amount of assistance each state's 
     apple growers received is listed below under the column 
     titled AMLAP. An estimate of the amount of assistance each 
     state's apple growers would receive under the Levin-Collins 
     amendment to the fiscal 2002 agriculture appropriations bill, 
     which would provide $150 million in market loss assistance to 
     offset 2000 crop losses, is listed under the column titled 
     AMLAP II.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    State                         AMLAP       AMLAP II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................................      $56,037    $1,269,802
California...................................    4,260,406    14,557,946
Colorado.....................................      669,559     1,077,244
Connecticut..................................       79,301       833,854
Georgia......................................      153,542       461,868
Idaho........................................    1,021,370     2,342,670
Illinois.....................................      311,624     1,572,777
Indiana......................................      301,902     1,349,585
Maine........................................      538,168     1,611,153
Maryland.....................................      396,696       984,669
Massachusetts................................      866,463     1,837,375
Michigan.....................................   11,270,241    19,460,081
Missouri.....................................      115,477     1,437,448
New Hampshire................................      425,351     1,037,184
New Jersey...................................      309,370     1,100,809
New York.....................................    9,546,250    15,846,936
North Carolina...............................    2,444,097     3,533,698
Ohio.........................................      720,304     2,946,600
Oregon.......................................    2,051,102     2,997,096
Pennsylvania.................................    3,798,287     8,587,320
South Carolina...............................      142,275       958,411
Utah.........................................       42,390     1,109,225
Vermont......................................      451,210     1,350,595
Virginia.....................................    1,918,006     4,854,332
Washington...................................   46,331,907    50,371,268
West Virginia................................      835,373     2,418,413
Wisconsin....................................      407,838     2,340,650
All Other States.............................      709,305     1,750,992
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................   90,173,852   150,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                            
                                  ____
              [From the Michigan Farm News, Feb. 28, 2001]

         Apple Situation Still Disastrous, Tart Cherries Better

                          (By Paul W. Jackson)

       Options for apple growers whose farms were devastated by 
     fire blight last year are not good, experts agree. For all 
     growers, prices continue to be disastrous.
       ``Prices are considerably below the cost of production,'' 
     said Tom Butler, manager of Michigan Processing Apple 
     Growers. ``Last year was the third year in a row they've been 
     through tough economic times.''
       Hard times are expected to continue, he said, because apple 
     juice concentrate imports from Argentina, China and Chile 
     continue at below $5 per gallon. Also, there's domestic 
     competition to worry about.
       ``Washington state continues to be a real competitor in 
     selling fresh applies at low prices, and they're using big 
     promotions,'' he said. ``That makes it difficult to get our 
     apples, particularly red delicious, into the marketplace.''
       The general state of depression in the apple industry is 
     worse in southwestern Michigan, where fire blight led to a 
     federal disaster aid program, a market loss assistance 
     program and a tree replacement program. But farmers are still 
     waiting for money from those promises, said Mark Longstroth, 
     Michigan State University (MSU) District Extension 
     horticultural and marketing agent in the Van Buren County 
     office.
       ``That aid was supposed to come in January, but it's stuck 
     in Washington (D.C.),'' he said. ``Complaining to your local 
     FSA (Farm Service Agency) office won't help. Complain to your 
     legislators.''
       While farmers wait for disaster aid, Longstroth said he's 
     been telling growers who uprooted significant chunks of apple 
     tree acreage to plant alfalfa this year.
       ``Don't be in such a big hurry to replant apples,'' he 
     said. ``Lease the ground for soybeans or corn, or plant 
     alfalfa to help amend the soil. That might give a grower the 
     best opportunity to look at what apple varieties might be 
     best if he wants to replant trees in a year or two.''

[[Page S11067]]

       Rumors that many apple farmers are considering vegetable 
     crops on the vacant ground concerns vegetable growers in the 
     area who already face tight margins.
       ``I have no problem with them growing vegetables if they're 
     already growing them,'' said Ron Goldy, MSU Extension 
     district vegetable agent for southwestern Michigan. ``They 
     already have established relationships in the market chain. 
     They'll talk to their brokers to decide if they can produce 
     five to 10 more acres,'' he said. ``But if they don't have 
     those relationships and they try to get into vegetables, 
     there's potentially no place to send their crops. I'd say 
     that they're better off renting the ground and maybe getting 
     $50 an acre for corn or soybeans. Or, there's nothing wrong 
     with the ground being vacant for awhile.''
       Other potential solutions for southwestern Michigan apple 
     growers seem to have dried up. Rumors that Lawton's Welches' 
     plant and parent company National Grape Cooperative was 
     seeking more grape growers aren't true.
       ``We were looking for more grape ground, but the board of 
     directors cancelled that call,'' said John Jasper, the co-
     op's area manager for Michigan. ``We did pick up some apple 
     acreage over the last few years, so our needs are filled 
     right now.''
       For apple growers who hope to survive last year's fire 
     blight problems this year, the recommendation from MSU is to 
     refrain from nitrogen fertilizer, prune oozing cankers and 
     pray for cool spring weather.
       The waiting game might be a good one to play as well, 
     Longstroth said. Nurseries are having trouble meeting demand 
     for replacement trees, and a wait might help growers know 
     what they should or should not plant in a year or two.
       Tart cherries the tart cherry industry is not great, but 
     there is light at the end of the tunnel, said Phil Korson, 
     with the Cherry Marketing Institute in DeWitt.
       ``We feel that a great opportunity for us is in cherry 
     juice. It's a huge market to capture, it uses a lot of 
     cherries and it gives consumers the cherry's anti-
     inflammatory properties in the most natural way,'' he said.
       Value-added products like that have been emphasized by the 
     Institute for a number of years, Korson said.
       ``We've worked on things from brandy to beers, to dried 
     cherries and nutraceuticals,'' he said. ``That's a real 
     opportunity for the future, and we have ongoing projects at 
     MSU and in Texas. Amway Corp., (A Michigan-based company) 
     plans to go to clinical trials this year to extract anti-
     inflammatory properties from cherries. The work originally 
     done at MSU was to identify compounds that have anti-
     inflammatory properties. The second part is the technology 
     used to extract those properties. Those were licensed by 
     Amway, and this year they bought balaton cherries (a variety 
     new to the state) to extract those properties, and they'll 
     take that to clinical trials within the next year.''
       Promotion of cherries as a beneficial food has been part of 
     what brought the tart cherry industry out of its near 
     disastrous overproduction just a few years ago. And while the 
     2000 crop was up--and prices down--a promotion program in 
     Europe, along with health promotions to boost domestic sales 
     and more than 50 million pounds in sales to the school lunch 
     program is bringing back strong optimism.
       ``I think there's a lot of optimism in the cherry market 
     today,'' Korson said. ``We've invested heavily in research in 
     Mexico, Japan and Europe, and we look in the future to expand 
     that network to Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Poland, to name a 
     few. There will be years when we'll have too much fruit, but 
     there are ways to offset that. Among them are expansion of 
     value-added products for the cherry industry, and marketing 
     the health benefits of cherries globally.''
                                  ____


         [From the New York Times, New York, NY, June 23, 2001]

                Where Apples Don't Pay, Developers Will

                         (By Lisa W. Foderaro)

       MILTON, N.Y.--In their sun-drenched orchard here in Ulster 
     County, where the McIntosh and Red Delicious apples are still 
     the size of cherries, father and son should be a whirlwind of 
     activity this time of year: spraying and thinning the trees 
     at Hudson Valley Farms, lining up labor for harvest.
       Instead, they will let the fruit fall to the ground this 
     fall. And they are spending their days indoors, in dry 
     contract negotiations with housing developers for the sale of 
     all 650 acres of their orchards--preparing the obituary, in 
     essence, of a family business that stretches back to the 
     1920's.
       ``This is the first time in my life that I have not had a 
     crop to tend to,'' said Bill Palladino, 58, who owns Hudson 
     Valley Farms with his son, Jeff, 31. ``It's definitely a 
     naked feeling. You get emotionally attached to your trees, 
     your orchards, your way of life. You miss that.''
       That is becoming a familiar refrain in Ulster County, the 
     second largest apple-producing county in a state that is 
     second only to Washington in apple production. Decisions like 
     the Palladinos' reflect enormous changes here and for 
     struggling apple growers around the country.
       After several years of losing money in a depressed market 
     that has devastated apple farmers nationwide, the Palladinos 
     and at least five other growers in the county are selling 
     out. They are taking advantage of the wave of suburban sprawl 
     lapping at the edges of this county 75 miles north of 
     Manhattan.
       In the process, a county where bosky ridges and clear 
     creeks always seemed a safe distance from the city, a place 
     where understated hamlets have captivated permanent residents 
     and weekenders alike, is wondering what the shriveling of the 
     apple industry will bring.
       ``It's a big concern--that all this green space will be 
     turned into development,'' said Suzanne Hauspurg, who, with 
     her husband, Dan, owns the Inn at Stone Ridge. Trying to 
     protect their corner of Eden, the two recently bought a 110-
     acre apple orchard behind their inn that a builder had been 
     considering.
       The apple growers here are not cashing in so much as they 
     are staving off financial ruin. They say that money that 
     arrived last week from the federal government, part of 
     nationwide program to compensate growers for market losses 
     with a maximum payment of $28,295, represents a tiny bandage 
     when what they need is a tourniquet. Some are equally 
     unimpressed with a state program that helps counties buy 
     development rights from farmers but that has yet to produce 
     any final agreements that would keep Ulster land in 
     agriculture.
       Since the early 1990's, farmers across the country have 
     suffered as production costs have risen and apple prices have 
     fallen: the result of a worldwide glut of apples, imports 
     of cheap apple-juice concentrate from China, and a 
     continuing consolidation among retailers that reduces 
     farmers' bargaining power. In addition, countries like 
     South Africa, Chile and New Zealand have emerged as major 
     exporters of fresh apples to the United States.
       Last year, the United States International Trade Commission 
     voted unanimously to put punitive antidumping duties on apple 
     juice concentrate from China. But some growers say Chinese 
     concentrate is still cheaper than American, even with the 
     imposition of the 52 percent duty.
       ``Not since the Great Depression have apple growers 
     sustained such losses,'' said Kraig Naasz, president and 
     chief executive officer of the United States Apple 
     Association in McLean, Va. He said that nationwide, apple 
     farmers have lost $1.5 billion in the past five years. ``This 
     coming harvest may mark the last for as many as 30 percent of 
     the nation's apple growers,'' he said.
       In the Hudson Valley, insult was added to the national 
     economic conditions by catastrophic hail storms that wiped 
     out a third of the apple crop last year. The year before, a 
     damaging hurricane punctuated a summer of drought in which 
     farmers spent copiously to irrigate their orchards.
       The for-sale signs popping up across Ulster County's 
     orchards are not new, but they mark a startling acceleration 
     of a trend that began more than a decade ago. In 1985, 104 
     farms covered 11,629 acres in Ulster County. By the end of 
     1996, the most recent year for which statistics are 
     available, the number of farms had fallen to 63 on 8,632 
     acres.
       Apple farming has continued to dwindle since then, with 
     production ending on more than 1,500 acres in the last year 
     alone.
       ``You could probably call most growers, and they've got 
     pieces of land up for sale,'' said Michael J. Fargione, an 
     educator with Cornell Cooperative Extension, a program of 
     Cornell University that provides research information and 
     educational programs to farmers. ``I'm not sure people are 
     aware of the critical point we're at in terms of the 
     potential for the loss of farms.''
       Most of the remaining orchards are particularly attractive 
     to developers because they lie in towns like Lloyd, 
     Marlborough and Plattekill on the county's eastern edge, 
     closer to the train lines across the Hudson River that lead 
     to New York City. In recent years, as Orange County to the 
     south and Dutchess County to the east have seen a surge in 
     home construction, Ulster has drawn professionals in search 
     of lower prices and open space.
       ``Ten or twenty years ago, people would say: `I have a 40-
     minute commute. Isn't that long?' '' said Seth McKee, 
     associate land preservation director of Scenic Hudson, an 
     environmental organization in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., that is 
     assisting Ulster County in its effort to buy development 
     rights from farmers. ``Now they say: `I have an hour commute. 
     Isn't that great?' The development pressures in Ulster are 
     not quite what they are in southern Dutchess, but that 
     doesn't mean it's not going to become that way.''
       That is just fine with Dennis and Diane Chaissan, apple 
     farmers who are now subdividing their 350 acres of orchards. 
     They shut down their apple operation in 1999. He got his 
     real estate license; she went back to school for a 
     master's degree in education administration.
       ``We didn't see a future in it,'' Mr. Chaissan said of the 
     apple business begun by his grandfather in 1910. ``Over the 
     last 10 years or so, prices have been stagnant or going down. 
     I didn't see a return on the money, and I didn't want to 
     continue. Looking back, I think it was the best decision we 
     ever made.''
       Mr. Chaissan, a trim 46-year-old with a salt-and-pepper 
     mustache, chose a profession that neatly positioned him to 
     take advantage of his top asset: land. Apple orchards are 
     selling for between $3,000 to $10,000 an acre, depending on 
     the location and factors like slope and drainage. But with 
     zoning approvals in place for housing, the land becomes much 
     more valuable.
       The Chaissans hope to sell four two-and-a-half-acre 
     building lots in the hamlet of Clintondale for $25,000 to 
     $100,000 each. The

[[Page S11068]]

     lots, still covered with trees bearing young Empire and 
     Cortland apples, have magnificent views of the Shawangunk 
     Mountains to the west.
       Like other growers, Mr. Chaissan, who works for Colucci 
     Shand Realty in Gardiner, N.Y., could not make the economics 
     of apples work. According to the New York State Apple 
     Association, a bushel of apples that sold for $14 in the mid 
     1990's now sells for $9. Mr. Chaissan figures that each 
     bushel would cost him about $11 to produce. ``Right now 
     growers are pounding their heads against a wall,'' he said. 
     ``They can't make money, and they see no way out.''
       His career switch was shrewd in another way, too. Mr. 
     Chaissan represents a few of his fellow apple farmers now 
     selling some or all of their orchards. One potential client 
     is Jeffrey D. Crist, a fourth-generation apple grower who 
     owns 500 acres of orchards, half in Ulster County and half in 
     Orange County.
       Mr. Crist is weighing a $2.3 million offer from a developer 
     for 227 acres of orchards in the town of Hamptonburgh in 
     Orange County. ``At this point, we're not planning to get out 
     of the business, but we can grow apples just as easily on 
     less valuable land farther away from New York City,'' Mr. 
     Crist said.
       Still, Mr. Crist said his first priority was to pay back 
     his creditors. ``I've got loan payments from last year's 
     growing season that are unpaid,'' he said, adding that 
     revenues were down a half previous year. ``We wouldn't invest 
     in other land if it looked like we were going to lose money. 
     The industry picture would have to improve.''
       Ulster County is now trying to buy development rights from 
     farmers under a state program that would ensure that the land 
     is reserved for agricultural use even if it is sold. But the 
     process is slow. Two years ago, 17 farmers in the county 
     applied, and the state, which contributes 75 percent of the 
     purchase cost, chose two. But those two farmers, both apple 
     growers in Clintondale, have yet to sell.
       ``It's possible I won't go through with it,'' said Phil 
     Hurd, an owner of M.G. Hurd & Sons, a 250-acre apple and pear 
     operation dating to the 1890's. ``My land is owned by several 
     family members, and it makes it difficult to come to 
     agreement. The program restricts you to farming, which you 
     can't make a profit on, so it's a double-edged sword.''
       Mr. McKee of Scenic Hudson says conservation programs like 
     these do not happen overnight. ``It's time-consuming to have 
     the farmers think about all the possibilities and put it into 
     an agreement that is perpetual,'' he said. ``They rely on 
     this land for their livelihood.''
       But as a resident of Ulster, Mr. McKee also knows that time 
     is a luxury neither the county nor the apple industry has. 
     ``It's very painful to watch the impact of suburban sprawl 
     heading north, but that's all the more reason why these 
     programs are vital,'' he said. ``For weekenders and local 
     folks who have been here for generations, it's the loss of a 
     sense of place. For the farm families, it's hard to watch 
     what used to be a vast expanse being nibbled away.''
                                  ____


         [From the Loudoun Times, Leesburg, VA, Aug. 15, 2001]

                Va. Apple Producers Face Many Pressures

       Market worries, hail and oversupply are causing tough times 
     for apple growers in Virginia and other apple-growing states.
       Producers in both the fresh fruit and processing sectors 
     are suffering greatly, according to Giles County orchardist 
     Bill Freeman.
       ``There's pressure from all sides. Things have gone 
     downhill for several years, but it's really become a struggle 
     to stay ahead. We're going to have to find different ways to 
     market our product and keep it moving despite complications 
     and competition,'' Freeman said.
       ``Apple production is quickly becoming a nonprofit 
     industry,'' said Richard Marini, a Virginia Cooperative 
     Extension horticulture specialist at Virginia Tech. ``There's 
     really a worldwide overproduction, and apples have become a 
     global market.''
       Virginia is the nation's sixth largest apple producer, 
     generating cash receipts of about $40 million in 1999. There 
     are fewer than 300 commercial growers in the Old Dominion. 
     Most are located in Frederick County, other parts of the 
     Shenandoah Valley and Virginia Piedmont, and in Southwest 
     Virginia.
       Estimated losses in national apple production between 1995 
     and 1998 are $760 million, according to the U.S. Apple 
     Association, and the average price received by growers in 
     January dropped to its second lowest level in more than 10 
     years.
       ``Washington (state) has really increased production in the 
     past several years with the thought that they could export 
     them. But larger production and exports from China and much 
     of Asia has prevented that,'' Marini said.
       In an effort to aid struggling producers, the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture began sign-ups March 1 for its 
     Apple Market Loss Assistance Program. Payments were made on a 
     grower's first 1.6 million pounds of production in either 
     1998 or 1999.
       ``The program is similar to other programs for other 
     commodities, but it's the first of its kind for apple 
     producers. Many producers have realized that it's going to be 
     necessary for their survival at this point, explained Spencer 
     Neale, senior assistant director of the Virginia Farm Bureau 
     Federation Commodity/Marketing Department. ``If a producer 
     has never relied on assistance before, it's a path they may 
     tend to be reluctant to go down now.''
       Freeman said this year's assistance ``has kept us going for 
     another year, but I'm not sure that it's not just prolonging 
     the agony.''
       The government is currently working on another program for 
     apple producers that could provide $150 million in 
     assistance. ``Despite the assistance that's provided to help 
     producers, it all comes down to supply and product price,'' 
     Neale said.
       In addition to market concerns, Virginia apple producers 
     have suffered problems from numerous hailstorms in recent 
     months, agriculture officials said.
                                  ____


           [From the Sun Journal, Lewiston, ME, Aug. 8, 2001]

                      Apple Growers' Aid Dropping

                            (By Glen Bolduc)


   since 1996 the nation's apple growers have suffered over $1.5b in 
                             market losses.

       TURNER--Apple trees used to grow on 850 acres of his farm. 
     Now there's only 500 acres of the fruit.
       ``We're getting smaller fast,'' said Harry Ricker, owner of 
     Ricker Hills Orchards.
       The only thing growing seems to be the bills.
       ``The wholesale apple business has not been profitable for 
     years now,'' Ricker said. ``Our industry has gotten to the 
     point where we need to worry about ourselves.''
       Since 1996 the nation's apple growers have suffered over 
     $1.5 billion in market losses. This past growing year alone 
     has cost them nearly $500 million.
       ``The apple industry is suffering the worst economic 
     conditions in 70 years,'' said Kraig Naasz, president of the 
     U.S. Apple Association in McLean, Va.
       Not since the Great Depression have apple growers suffered 
     such monetary loss, and Naasz estimates that 30 percent of 
     the nation's apple growers will retire their industry this 
     year if help isn't provided in some form.
       ``We're in trouble,'' Ricker said, ``and we need some 
     government help.''


                             government aid

       Last week the U.S. Senate caved in to President Bush's veto 
     threat and approved a $5.5 billion agriculture assistance 
     bill that was $2 billion less than the House version. 
     Republican Susan Collins of Maine was one of the senators who 
     voted in favor of the trim; Olympia Snowe voted in favor of 
     the House version.
       About $50 million of the $2 billion cut from the original 
     draft would have been used to supplement the market loss of 
     apple growers. But the approved version still provides $169 
     million to states for various needs.
       ``The funds would have been well utilized,'' said Ned 
     Porter, deputy commissioner of the Maine Department of 
     Agriculture. ``However, we're not out of the fight yet.''
       The House has currently approved another farm aid bill that 
     will provide about $150 million--an estimated $900,000 for 
     Maine--in market loss assistance.
       Although the bill still has to wait for Senate and White 
     House approval next month, Naasz said he expects it to pass. 
     ``It looks very promising,'' he said.
       But Don Ricker, father of Harry Ricker, said that a lot of 
     times the funding never comes.
       ``Typically the Congress passes all these bills, and they 
     get a lot of press, but then it just dies,'' he said. ``You'd 
     think that I was living high with all these handouts.''
       Ricker's orchard was awarded farm assistance in a 1998 
     bill, but the check didn't come until June 2000.


                           why the hard times

       The cause of the economic stress is all in the politics of 
     sale and trade, Naasz said. ``The reasons are many and mostly 
     beyond the control of apple growers.''
       In the last 10 years, the nation's price for apples has not 
     risen.
       ``I can't go on,'' Dimock said. ``We're simply not getting 
     for our crop what it takes to produce it.''
       Rising costs in fuel, chemicals, and labor are not being 
     met adequately, and the cost for apples in the United States 
     is dropping even further because of foreign imports.
       China produces four times the amount of the United States, 
     and recent years have seen prices for American apples drop 
     from eight cents a pound to 1 cent a pound as the overseas 
     product floods the American market.
       ``This stuff goes in cycles,'' Ricker said. But once the 
     American market is profitable again for apple growers, 
     ``we're not going to be here to do that.''
       Besides government assistance, Naasz said, other remedies 
     will have to include raising apple prices, placing limits on 
     imports and increasing marketing campaigns.
       ``It's encouraging consumers to eat that apple a day for 
     health,'' he said.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our growers have invested heavily in their 
efforts to reverse their economic plight. They are not seeking the 
establishment of a permanent direct assistance program. However, unless 
we take some interim action here, as many as 30 percent of American 
apple growers are going to lose their farms. So this ad hoc assistance 
which we are struggling to achieve is essential if we are going to 
avoid that calamity.
  The fiscal year 2001 agricultural supplemental appropriations bill 
that

[[Page S11069]]

emerged from the committee included funding of $150 million for our 
Nation's apple growers. That provision, which came out of the 
committee, had to be dropped at the last minute if we were going to get 
a bill passed at all. So the Senate version of the bill had to be 
dropped, which included that assistance. Instead, the House bill was 
adopted which at that time did not include the assistance.
  What has happened subsequently is the following. The House bill now 
has $150 million for our Nation's apple growers, and it will go to 
conference whether we adopt this amendment or not. We have had 
discussions among ourselves, the sponsors of this amendment, as to what 
would be the best approach to take.
  I will yield the floor at this time, but I simply want to say this--
and I want to speak to my good friend from Wisconsin in a moment. Our 
goal is to achieve this assistance one way or the other--either on this 
floor or in conference--by our giving the House provision the final say 
in this matter.
  I am going to have a colloquy in a few moments with our friend from 
Wisconsin.
  At this time there are a number of other cosponsors of this amendment 
in the Chamber who I hope can now be recognized before that colloquy 
takes place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment by 
the Senator from Michigan. This is an extremely important measure. The 
Senator from Michigan aptly described what has happened to our apple 
farmers across the country. In my home State of Washington, it has been 
a tremendous disaster with the economic loss for the young families who 
are working diligently to try to make ends meet in this industry for 
the last several years. It has been heartbreaking to watch.
  The Senator from Michigan talked about the dumping of apple juice 
concentrate by China, which contributed to the decline in our apple 
growing communities. Severe weather conditions this year have caused 
horrendous problems for these orchardists who have been struggling for 
the last few years anyway. The loss of markets in Asia, because of the 
Pacific Rim crisis, precipitated this dramatic loss for many farmers in 
the State of Washington.
  The Senator from Michigan described the process that we have been 
going through. Senator Cantwell from my home State and I worked hard 
with the Senators from Michigan, New York, Maine, Vermont, and 
Massachusetts on the emergency supplemental bill to provide $150 
million for the apple industry in this country. That support was not 
included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill when it came out of 
committee because we fully expected the Administration and the House to 
support this as an emergency supplemental measure. Unfortunately, they 
did not. As a result, in August Congress recessed without the money in 
the emergency agricultural supplemental. This bill is now coming to the 
floor, and it is absolutely essential for our farmers.
  Senator Cantwell and I have traveled around our State. We have seen 
the tremendous pain and loss among our farmers, and we have seen the 
hardships they are experiencing today.
  My grandfather, back in the early 1900s, lived in central Washington 
and was part of the apple industry. I can tell you, when I was growing 
up I remember driving across central Washington and seeing our 
tremendous, beautiful orchards. I was so proud to be from Washington 
State. Today, as a Senator traveling around the world, I am proud to be 
able to talk about bringing our apples into markets worldwide--both for 
our economy and for establishing great relationships with countries 
everywhere. The apple is the symbol of the State of Washington.
  It is upsetting for me to visit central Washington today and see so 
many abandoned orchards. Many of the orchards have been bulldozed 
because farmers can't sell their apples for a fair price.
  Add to that the weather conditions of this year with the drought that 
has occurred in the State of Washington and the severe hailstorms we 
have seen. That means we will not have these orchards in the future if 
we don't provide assistance this year in the Agriculture appropriations 
bill. I am committed to providing it, along with my colleague from 
Washington State, and the Senators from Michigan, New York, 
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. All of us have worked hard together 
with our chairman, who has been a great advocate and supporter.
  I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. He understands the plight of our 
farmers. He is committed to working with us to ensure this assistance 
is there for our farmers. It is essential for a way of life in 
Washington State and across this country. It is essential for a product 
that is important to my home State and to many others. I believe it is 
essential for the future of this industry that we have this help and 
assistance from this Congress this year in this appropriations bill.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan for offering this amendment. I 
thank our Chair, Senator Kohl, for his support and his assistance. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to be sure we don't lose 
these important farmers and this important resource for our country.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise also to support this very 
important effort and very important amendment.
  I, first, thank my senior colleague and friend from Michigan for his 
ongoing leadership in this effort to support our apple growers in 
Michigan and across the country, and my colleagues who are joining us 
in the Chamber certainly have been at the forefront of this battle.
  We really have had two strategies. One is to focus on research for 
apple fire blight. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member for their ongoing efforts. There are dollars in this 
bill for apple fire blight research. That continues to be a priority. I 
thank him for his vision and his support because in the long run we are 
hoping the research will allow us to be able to find ways for our 
farmers to eradicate this terrible disease that is so afflicting the 
apple growers across the country.
  In the meantime, we know that in the last 5 years apple growers 
across our country have lost $1.5 billion. Last year alone, $500 
million was lost as a result of this effort.
  We are talking about a serious disease affecting a very important 
Michigan industry and national industry.
  I am very hopeful that we can come together and support the $150 
million effort. I am very pleased that the House has finally recognized 
this and is supporting this effort in the House bill.
  Let me stress one more time that originally we had this supplemental 
funding in the emergency supplemental that we passed. As a member of 
the Agriculture Committee, we worked very hard with colleagues to get 
that money in the Senate bill. I appreciate everyone's efforts at that 
time. Unfortunately, we were not able to pass the Senate bill. We were 
not able to address it earlier, which we had hoped would happen.
  Now we find ourselves in a situation where we are seriously in need 
of addressing this as quickly as possible. This amendment is absolutely 
critical. I hope we will have the support of colleagues.
  While I have the floor, I also want to say one more time a thank you 
to our leader, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the ranking member 
for a number of different issues in this bill that are important to 
Michigan--the focus on the eradication of bovine disease and specialty 
crop research in other areas are very important. I very much appreciate 
the fact they are willing to undertake this issue and support our apple 
growers. It is absolutely critical to our economy and to the economy of 
many, many States.
  I yield the floor. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak, along with my 
colleagues from Michigan and Washington who have eloquently talked 
about the important need of helping the apple industry--not just those 
States mentioned but all across the Nation. We

[[Page S11070]]

are trying to move forward on an Agriculture appropriations bill. We 
have the opportunity in that process to express the failure of last 
August when we actually had the means by which to help legitimate apple 
growers across the country in the emergency supplemental.
  I very much appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Wisconsin to 
help us bring attention to this issue. The current House version of 
this bill includes $150 million in apple assistance. We need to match 
that assistance.
  As my colleagues have stated, this industry, particularly this year 
for us in the State of Washington, has just been devastating, largely 
due to the fact we have had the second worst drought on record in our 
State. Not only have farmers been without all the resources they need, 
but the high cost of energy in those areas where farmers have been able 
to irrigate has made this a very difficult year.
  We have already seen how important the apple industry is in our 
State. Over 183,000 people are employed in that industry. But every one 
of these family farms are on the brink, and they need help now.
  Current prices are 40 percent below the cost of production. Between 
1995 and 1998, apple growers lost approximately $760 million due to 
questionable import practices involving such countries as China and 
Korea--in addition to stiff export tariffs.
  They also face increases in the price of diesel fuel. Prices are up 
20 to 30 percent over last year. The cost of running electricity pumps 
that these farmers use is expected to rise as much as 150 percent.
  Our farmers have been facing all of these things, and some are very 
close to bankruptcy.
  So I very much appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin in his efforts 
to make sure this issue gets addressed as we move through the process, 
and I very much appreciate his efforts earlier this year in making sure 
the Senate version of the supplemental included this support.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the previous 
speakers on this issue.
  I would like to declare that I will fight for them in conference. The 
House of Representatives has the money in their bill, and that fact 
will give us the opportunity to meet this need of apple growers. The 
Senators from the States of Michigan, Washington, New York, Maine, 
Massachusetts, and Vermont have been very persuasive, most effective, 
and, frankly, relentless in this cause on behalf of their apple 
growers.
  This bill was voted out of the Appropriations Committee in July, and 
we fully expected the White House and the House of Representatives to 
fund this urgent need for apple growers in the agricultural 
supplemental. In fact, the Senate had done that. That is why it isn't 
in this bill. And the budget allocation precludes me from putting it in 
now. That is why I am declaring I will fight for it in conference 
instead. I very much appreciate the advocacy of the Senators from those 
States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Edwards be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the good Senator from Wisconsin has really 
worked with us on so many issues. I appreciate very much what he has 
just said. With that assurance, I am satisfied, and I intend to 
withdraw this amendment. I think, however, there may be another speaker 
on this amendment. I will not withdraw it if there is another speaker. 
I will withhold that at this time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Michigan, 
I am very supportive of his amendment, but I was going to speak to 
another one and would love to be added as a cosponsor to this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. We welcome that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon 
be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 1978 Withdrawn

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I withdraw this amendment at this time, 
with thanks to Senator Kohl and also Senator Cochran. I have had a 
chance to speak with Senator Cochran, who has been so helpful on a 
whole host of issues in the agricultural area. While we had a minor 
disagreement in the area of missile defense, in so many other areas we 
have worked together on issues. I hope we can work together on this 
issue as it proceeds to conference.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw the 
amendment. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Wisconsin in 
thanking the Senator from Michigan for his action. I know it is a 
serious problem, and it has been well identified. The Senator from 
Oregon has an interest in it as well.
  There are other agricultural activities that are similarly situated. 
We have heard from the Senator from Wyoming, for example, on the plight 
of the livestock industry; there are problems in some other specific 
areas of the country because of drought--all of which are in need of 
special assistance and special economic assistance in this time of 
hardship.
  So all of these interests are going to be considered. They should be 
considered by the Congress as we work to reach an agreement in 
conference on this bill.
  I am happy to join with the Senator from Wisconsin in assuring those 
who talked about the apple industry and the problems they have that 
their interests will be carefully considered. I hope we can work out a 
provision in this bill in conference that will be satisfactory with 
them.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 1981

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today, again, to raise my 
voice on behalf of the farmers of Klamath Falls, OR, and the Klamath 
Falls Basin that includes northern California in equal numbers.
  I first thank my colleagues of the Senate and of the entire Congress 
for the $20 million that was allocated on an emergency basis to help 
these farmers to stave off foreclosure.
  My colleague, Senator Wyden, and I pointed out at the time that it 
was probably a tenth of what was actually needed, and that is proving 
to be the case, because the wolves of foreclosure are at the doors of 
many farms right now. The reason is simply that they were denied a 
season of farming. You can imagine what it would mean if the Federal 
Government took away the means by which any of us makes a living for a 
year and how we might survive. The truth is, we cannot. No one saves 
that money. The way farms operate, they do not have those kinds of 
margins.
  So what I am doing today is seeking an additional appropriation to 
help them; it comes in two requests: One, it is to provide these 1,400 
farm families with an additional $38 million in direct assistance; in 
addition to that, $9 million for activities to improve water storage 
and water quality in the Upper Klamath River Basin.
  I have searched for offsets. I found one. I am willing to work with 
the Congress on making these dots connect, but I am identifying it as 
an offset: the sale of Pershing Hall in Paris, France. It is along the 
Champs Elysees. It is owned by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It 
is empty. We are paying taxes on it. It is exceedingly valuable real 
estate. It is run down. It is vacant.
  I am asking that we sell this building and that we use this money to 
help these farmers. It will generate at least this amount of money, and 
more. I am simply saying that, in very real terms, this money is needed 
now while it is being wasted in Paris.
  The people of Oregon generally have the highest rates of unemployment 
in America, but certainly the pain is felt more acutely in Klamath 
Falls than any place of which I can think.
  So I ask for consideration of my amendment. I look forward to working 
with the chairman and the ranking

[[Page S11071]]

member, both of whom have expressed support for my cause on this issue. 
And I thank them for that. I also thank my colleague, Senator Wyden, 
for his equal partnership in the effort to try to salvage 1,400 great 
family farms.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President, and thank you for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to this Chamber today to join my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith. One can debate whether we have 
found precisely the right offset. Senator Smith and I have scoured the 
budget and intend to work closely with the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the chairman of the full committee and, of course, the ranking 
minority members as well, so as to ensure that this is addressed at the 
proper time in the proper way.
  But as Senator Smith has correctly said, what I think is not 
debatable is the fact that there is a world of hurt, a world of pain in 
the Klamath Basin in the State we represent. We have scores and scores 
of farmers in that part of the State who are on the ropes as we speak.
  These are people who have worked hard all their lives. That have 
played by the rules. They have done nothing wrong. But clearly, now, as 
a result of policies that ensure we can find water for all the uses 
about which people of Oregon and people of this country feel strongly--
agriculture, environment, conservation--there is a tremendous crunch in 
our part of the country.
  Senator Smith and I have spent many hours in recent weeks working to 
forge a coalition between agricultural interests, environmental 
interests, the rural communities--all of the stakeholders--the tribes, 
and all of the parties who feel so strongly about this.
  The reason we come to the floor today is that we want to work with 
the Appropriations Committee--particularly the chairman, Senator Kohl, 
and Senator Cochran, who have been very gracious to us in working on 
Klamath issues in the past--so we can get this urgently needed 
assistance.
  It is our understanding that there are some questions about exactly 
from which account this should come. Senator Smith has been very clear, 
in making our initial remarks, that we intend to work with both the 
subcommittee and the full committee to ensure this offset does come 
from the appropriate account.
  What is not debatable is how grave the need is. We have farmers who 
are not going to survive. They are not going to be there a few months 
down the road, if we can't get the assistance through this amendment 
the two Oregon Senators offer today.
  I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Cochran. We are going to be working 
closely with them and with the chairman of the full committee and the 
ranking minority member, Senator Stevens, so that we can find the funds 
needed so urgently in the Klamath Basin and we can give a little bit of 
hope at this critical time to those families who are suffering today 
and are worried about whether they are going to be able to farm 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask for adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I couldn't understand the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been proposed.
  Mr. REID. What did the Senator from Oregon say?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am asking for consideration of our amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I object. I would like to make a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. We do not have a copy of the amendment. However, we do 
understand that the offset of which they speak falls in the 
jurisdiction of another subcommittee. We need to confer with that 
subcommittee and the Congressional Budget Office. We did provide $20 
million to the Klamath Basin in the spring supplemental. No other 
disaster assistance has been provided by this committee. If we accept 
this amendment, then others will seek additional assistance which our 
allocation cannot provide.
  This is a very difficult amendment for this committee to support. In 
fact, we will not support it.
  In addition, I am fairly certain that the offset they are discussing 
does not fall within this committee's jurisdiction. I humbly and 
respectfully suggest that they pursue a different avenue than 
requesting a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask for the amendment's 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for himself and Mr. 
     Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1981.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide assistance for farmers and ranchers in the Klamath 
                     Basin, Oregon and California)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``In addition to amounts otherwise available, $38,000,000 
     from amounts pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 713a-4, for the Secretary 
     of Agriculture to make available financial assistance to 
     eligible producers in the Klamath Basin, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``$6,600,000 will be available for the acquisition of 
     lands, interests in lands or easements in the Upper Klamath 
     River Basin from willing sellers for the purposes of 
     enhancing water storage or improving water quality in the 
     Upper Basin.
       ``$2,500,000 will be available through the rural utilities 
     account to fund the drilling of wells for landowners 
     currently diverting surface water upstream of Upper Klamath 
     Lake, Oregon.
       ``Funding for this program will come from the sale of 
     Pershing Hall, a Department of Veterans' Affairs building in 
     Paris, France.''

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to work with the 
chairman and the ranking member to find the offset that works and that 
would win the support of the chairman and ranking member. I thank them 
both.
  Mr. KOHL. We would be happy to accommodate the Senator with respect 
to his last comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                      Amendment No. 1981 Withdrawn

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment that is now pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for amendments to be 
offered, I wanted to make a couple of comments about this subcommittee 
bill and talk about the work done by Senator Kohl and Senator Cochran 
on this bill.
  As always, as I have indicated before, a lot of difficult work goes 
into putting together the Agriculture appropriations bill. Senators 
Kohl and Cochran work very well together. I, for one, appreciate their 
cooperation and their assistance. I think they have put together a good 
piece of legislation.
  There are two issues that I have on previous occasions brought to the 
floor during the consideration of this legislation. One issue we 
discussed last year on this bill, among other things, is the 
reimportation of prescription drugs. This issue deals with drug prices, 
and what we can do to lower those prices.
  As I understand it, in the House of Representatives in their 
Agriculture appropriations bill, there is a provision dealing with the 
reimportation of drugs that will come to conference this year. It is my 
intention not to offer an amendment in the Senate on this matter this 
year--not because it is not important because it is very much so, but 
as we all know too well, a number of things have happened at this point 
to change our focus. Other events have happened in this country that 
have caused us to focus on other serious issues dealing with terrorism 
and so on. I think this is not the point at which we ought to go off 
into the medicine importation debate. Therefore, I

[[Page S11072]]

will not offer an amendment dealing with the reimportation of 
prescription drugs.
  However, let me say this issue will not go away. It is still 
critically important. The issue will be alive in conference because 
there is a provision in the bill sent to us by the House of 
Representatives. One of the reasons we--myself, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Stabenow, Senator Snowe, Senator Wellstone, and a number of 
others of us--have worked on the issue of prescription drug prices and 
reimportation is that prescription drugs are priced higher in the 
United States than anywhere else in the world. You see a prescription 
drug sold across the counter in this country to the American consumer 
at the highest price in the world. That is not fair.
  I have told colleagues of my experience in taking a group of senior 
citizens from North Dakota up to Emerson, Canada, just 5 miles across 
the North Dakota-Canadian border. In a little one-room pharmacy in 
Canada, you can buy the same prescription drugs sold in Pembina, ND. 
The only difference is price--same drug, same pill, put in the same 
bottle, manufactured by the same company. You can buy it for 50-percent 
or 70-percent less across the border in Canada than you can in the 
United States. That is not fair to the American consumer, and it is not 
fair pricing.
  We all know spending on prescription drugs is increasing 
dramatically--15, 16, 18 percent a year, year after year. The American 
people--particularly senior citizens--are very concerned about this. 
One of the proposals we had offered previously was to say: If this is a 
global economy, why can that not work for everybody, why not for all 
Americans? Why can't an American citizen or, yes, an American 
pharmacist, or a distributor get access to cheaper drugs in Winnipeg, 
Canada, and bring them back and pass the savings along to the American 
consumer?
  Let me give a couple of examples. Cipro, a drug most of us now know 
about, is used to treat infections. In recent days, we have seen that 
it has been given to thousands of people who have been exposed to 
anthrax. The average wholesale price in the United States is $399 a 
bottle. You can buy Cipro in Canada at $171 a bottle. Let me say that 
again. A bottle of Cipro--same strength, same number of tablets--in 
Canada costs $171, but when you buy it in the United States, it is 
$399. Why more than twice as expensive in the United States? Why does 
the American consumer pay more than twice as much for the same drug, 
put in the same bottle, made in an FDA-approved plant? Does that make 
sense?
  Or take the example of Zocor. A football coach tells us on television 
in an advertisement that I suppose I have seen 500 times that Zocor 
would be great to lower your cholesterol. The average wholesale price 
in the United States is $3.82 for one 20-milligram tablet. In Canada, 
it is $1.82. Fair? I don't think so.
  Zoloft is used to treat depression. In the United States, it is $2.34 
per 50 milligram tablet. In Canada, the exact same tablet costs $1.28. 
Fair? I don't think so.
  For every dollar we spend for the same prescription drugs in this 
country, the Canadians spend 64 cents; the Swedes pay 68 cents; in 
Great Britain it costs 65 cents; and in Italy, 51 cents. That is what 
is angering the American people and propelling a number of us to say if 
this global economy is to work, why can't it work for all Americans? 
Why can't a pharmacist from Grand Forks, ND, access the same 
prescription drug produced in an FDA-approved plant and bring it back 
and pay half the price and pass the savings along to the consumer in 
this country. I offered an amendment of this type last year. We went to 
conference. We actually succeeded in getting this agreed to in 
conference. And both the Clinton administration and the Bush 
administration Secretaries of Health and Human Services said they would 
not implement this legislation because they said it would not, among 
other things, save money. Let me ask if there is anybody who has gone 
past the third grade who doesn't understand that, if you buy Cipro in 
the United States and pay $399 a bottle and are only required to pay 
$171 a bottle in Canada, that you can't save money by buying the bottle 
from Canada.

  I guess the only people who think that are the two successive 
Secretaries of Health and Human Services. I don't know what kind of 
math they taught in their schools, but I went to a school with 40 
students in all 4 high school grades. There were 9 in my senior class. 
I studied the highest math they offered, and I can understand that this 
saves money, and there is no Secretary of any Agency in the Federal 
Government who can convince us otherwise.
  Nonetheless, neither administration will implement it. The result is 
a law that was passed last year is not yet implemented. For reasons I 
discussed before, we will not offer the amendment on this piece of 
legislation. But this will be a conferenceable issue because a 
provision is coming from the House on the Agriculture appropriations 
bill, and we will resolve this then. It is, I think, an unusual time in 
our country's history, as we wage a fight against terrorism and deal 
with a range of issues, so that perhaps this is not the right time to 
have a full-scale debate about this issue. But there will probably 
never be a right time, and there will be a time when we must force this 
again on behalf of the American consumer, to ask how do you justify 
this? How do you justify drug companies charging the highest prices to 
the American consumers out of any consumers in the world? How do you 
justify doubling and tripling the price? How do you justify to a woman 
who has breast cancer that she ought to pay 10 times more money for 
Tamoxifen purchased in the United States than in Canada. How do you 
justify that to somebody fighting cancer, who has to fight a pricing 
policy for prescription drugs that is wrong?
  The answer is that you cannot justify it. That is why this Congress, 
sooner or later--and I hope sooner--will deal with that subject.
  Now, Mr. President, there is one other issue on which I have 
traditionally offered an amendment on this subcommittee. Again, I will 
not because I understand we are not able to do it this year for a 
number of reasons. Each year, in recent years, we have had to offer 
amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill on the floor of the 
Senate trying to provide some weather disaster and economic relief. 
Why? Because the Freedom to Farm bill was miserable, a miserable 
failure. It was a disaster, in my judgment. So each year, because it 
was not countercyclical, it didn't provide help when farmers needed 
it--or enough help--as we saw commodity prices collapse. We had to try 
to put some sort of disaster relief in the bill, both weather and 
economic. We normally described it as emergency spending. We went to 
conference and boosted it.
  I would say the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from 
Mississippi were instrumental in making all of that assistance 
available to family farmers in this country. I commend them for that. 
We will likely, in some areas of the country, again this year, need 
some weather disaster assistance. I understand that in Montana, Idaho, 
Wyoming--and some other areas that colleagues have talked about--there 
has been drought. And in some other areas, too much rain has fallen. I 
expect there won't be a weather disaster amendment this year to this 
appropriations bill because I don't think the money exists or the 
emergency category exists to accommodate that. But there will be an 
economic stimulus package that will be discussed and considered, and it 
seems to me that one of the things that might be considered would be a 
livestock and crop loss assistance for disaster aid to those who 
suffered disasters.
  In fact, it is stimulative because that money gets in the hands of 
producers who then are able to use that immediately to deal with the 
debts they have and put that money on the main street of our small 
towns and cities across the country.
  So as we move along, even though this subcommittee will not carry 
these two amendments in its markup this year, it is my hope both of 
them will continue to be considered, one in conference because it will 
come from the House, and the second, I hope, perhaps in the stimulus 
package when we have an opportunity to consider that in the Senate.
  Finally, there are a lot of provisions of this Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee bill that are critically important dealing 
with research and

[[Page S11073]]

other matters relating to American agriculture. Our agriculture in this 
country ought to be a source of enormous pride to all of us. In my 
judgment, family farmers in America are America's economic all-stars. 
Yet they have had an awfully tough time year after year as commodity 
prices have collapsed. One part of trying to help them is not only 
trying to write a new farm bill, which we should do and we ought to do 
soon. In fact, we ought to bring a farm bill to this Chamber within a 
matter of weeks. But, one part of assistance in addition to that farm 
bill is to provide the kind of research help that will allow family 
farmers the ability to have access to new seeds--disease-resistant 
strains of seeds--to make them more effective and reduce risks. That is 
what much of this bill is about, investment and research.
  I again say thanks to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and 
Senator Cochran from Mississippi. It is always a pleasure to work with 
them. They do a good job, and I am proud of them.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have had a number of inquiries in both 
cloakrooms about how this bill is moving along, and it is moving along 
fine. The two managers are working on what amendments can be accepted, 
which ones cannot be accepted. That list should be completed relatively 
soon, within the next half hour, hopefully.
  The only amendment outstanding, other than what the managers are 
working on, it is believed, is the Harkin amendment. He is working with 
Senator Nelson of Nebraska to see if they can work out language on that 
amendment. If not, Senator Harkin would offer that amendment. As I 
understand it, Senator Nelson of Nebraska would move to second degree 
that amendment.
  As I said, they are trying to work out that amendment. So Senators 
should be advised, we hope, within the next hour or so, and with a 
little bit of luck, we can complete this legislation. If someone has an 
amendment and they have not been able to work with the managers, have 
not had the opportunity to offer the amendment, they should come over 
because we are going to wrap up this bill totally as soon as we 
complete what the managers are working on, and the Harkin amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been waiting here while a couple of 
our colleagues are trying to resolve some differences in the Cloakroom 
on an amendment. It is taking them a while so it gives me an 
opportunity to say a bit about an amendment that I have offered to this 
bill the last 2 years and which the Senate has accepted both time. I 
have not offered it this year and will not this evening. I wanted to 
explain why.
  That amendment deals with the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba 
and the ability of American farmers to sell food to Cuba. In the last 2 
years I offered amendments to this appropriations bill that would have 
eliminated the embargo that now prevents American farmers from selling 
food to Cuba.
  As you know, the American embargo of Cuba has been a failure for 40 
years. That embargo has included restrictions on the shipment of food 
and medicine to Cuba. I have said for several years it is morally 
wrong, in my judgment, for us to use food and medicine as a weapon. It 
is not right for us to use food and medicine as part of an embargo. It 
doesn't injure Fidel Castro. He has never missed a meal because we 
don't ship food to Cuba.
  Our allies, the Canadians and Europeans and others, of course, are 
able to sell food and other goods to Cuba. It is just the American 
farmer who is prevented from accessing that markets.
  Twice I have offered amendments to fix the problem. The first year my 
amendment got hijacked because the conference got abandoned and the 
leaders would not allow it to resume because they knew I had the votes 
in conference to end the embargo on food and medicine shipments to 
Cuba. The second year the House of Representatives changed the language 
and boasted they had solved the problem, but of course they did not. 
What they provided was that food could be shipped to Cuba, except the 
sales could not be financed even with private financing. So we still, 
in fact, have an embargo on food shipments to Cuba. There are no food 
shipments happening between this country and Cuba. So the U.S. 
government still tells our farmers: You pay the cost of this embargo. 
You cannot be part of the Cuban market for food. You can't be a part of 
it, the Canadians can, the Europeans can, but you can't because we have 
an embargo of which you are going to pay the cost.
  This is unfair to farmers. And I don't think it is a moral policy for 
our country to use food as a weapon.
  Let me say, finally, the provision that was completed last year 
started the right way in the Senate with my amendment. We did the right 
thing. It got watered down and then perverted in the conference, and 
those who did it that boasted that this really solved the problem. A 
year later we know it did not.
  I would say by this time next year, when I certainly will again offer 
this amendment in the Senate, it will be quite evident that what they 
boasted of last year never materialized at all. Farmers were still 
paying the price for this embargo.
  We have had plenty of experience with embargoes on food. It ought not 
be a lesson we need to learn two or three times. Shooting ourselves in 
the foot doesn't really solve much of the problem. As I indicated, 
Fidel Castro has never missed a meal because of the embargo. He does 
just fine. It is our family farmers who suffer.
  If necessary, I will offer an amendment to fix this problem again 
next year. I would like to do so now. However, I think this is not the 
time. It is late in the year. We should have passed this appropriations 
bill weeks ago. If I offered this amendment this evening, we would be 
off into a debate that would last many hours. But I would like to 
remind my colleagues that I have offered it for the last 2 years. I 
will offer it again, and some of my colleagues on this appropriations 
subcommittee will join me the next time we go around.
  In deference to the work that we need to do and the times we are in, 
I think it is important for all of us to work together to try to find a 
way for us to avoid the kind of controversy that divides us hour after 
hour after hour. We have been through all of that.
  I wanted to explain why I am not going to offer that amendment this 
evening. But be sure to keep tuned because it will be offered again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss for a few moments 
the fundamental problem with this appropriations bill and then talk a 
little bit about the pork that is again prevalent and on the increase 
in this appropriations bill.
  First of all, I want to talk about Federal subsidies, where they go, 
who should be receiving them, the largess of the Federal Government 
taxpayers' money under the present setup, how we are going to work 
subsidies, and how the money is distributed.
  Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office released a report 
that details some very critical information on the disturbing trends of 
federal farm assistance. The GAO reports that over 80 percent of farm 
payments have been made to large- and medium-sized farms, while small 
farms have received less than 20 percent of the payments.
  In 1999, large farms, which represent about 7 percent of all farms 
nationwide with gross agricultural sales of $250,000, received about 45 
percent of federal payments. These payments average about $64,737.
  Seventeen percent of farms that are medium-sized with gross sales 
between $50,000 and $250,000, received 45 percent of all payments. 
Payments average $21,943.
  Let me repeat that.

[[Page S11074]]

  Seven percent of all the farms are now getting 45 percent of all the 
payments. Seventeen percent of farms that are medium sized and with 
gross sales between $50,000 and $250,000 receive 45 percent of all 
payments. Payments average $21,943.
  What does this mean? Generally, small farms--with gross sales under 
$50,000--received only 14 percent of the payments, despite the fact 
that small farms make up about 76 percent of the farms nationwide. Most 
of these payments average about $4,141. That is about 6 percent of the 
total amount made available to large farms.
  There is something wrong here. Seventy-six percent of all the farms 
get 14 percent of the payments. Seven percent of the farms receive 45 
percent of the payments.
  Where is the rhetoric about the small and family farmer?
  The GAO also concluded that:

       The percentage of payments received by the large, very 
     large, and nonfamily farm types increased from 1993 and 
     decreased for other farm types. These farms also experienced 
     substantial increases in the average payment that they 
     received in 1999.
       Large and very large farms received about 22 percent of the 
     payments in 1999, with average payments ranging from $51,000 
     to $85,000.

  If we take a look at what has happened with the Freedom to Farm bill 
and with the substantial amount of emergency and supplemental payments 
Congress has delivered since 1998, the trend seems to indicate that 
small farmers are receiving less and less federal assistance. In 1995, 
small farms received 29 percent of payments. By 1999, small farms 
received 14 percent.
  Thus far, between 1999 and 2001 alone, Congress has designated more 
than $30 billion in emergency or supplemental spending for farm relief. 
While the 1996 farm bill was intended to reduce reliance on the Federal 
Government, payments to farmers have increased by 400 percent, from $7 
billion in 1996 to $32 billion in 2001. I think we should all be 
concerned about where this money is really being spent.
  By some reports, even the likes of Ted Turner and pro basketball 
star, Scottie Pippen, have been recipients of Federal subsidies. At 
least 20 Fortune 500 companies and more than 1,200 universities and 
Government farms, including State prisons, received Government checks. 
Such corporate giants as Riceland Foods, Inc., based in Stuttgart, 
Arkansas, took in a mammoth $32 million in Federal subsidies and a 
large conglomerate farm, Missouri Delta Farms received $7 million.
  Who pays the tab for these payments? The American taxpayers.
  I don't know how you justify a $32 million subsidy to one 
organization, one corporation, and call it assistance to the farmer. 
Let's call it assistance to major corporations. Let's call it for what 
it is.
  What I think we ought to do is support the hard-hit family farm 
operations. Any entity that earned more than $1 million in annual 
revenues does not justify the expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
  I remind my colleagues the American public is very much aware of the 
actions we are taking when asking the taxpayers to subsidize farmers. 
Many others among the American public have expressed similar concerns.
  Let me point out a few statements:
  Representative Ron Kind, Wisconsin in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, 
July 2001:

       Why are we throwing these billions of dollars at these few 
     farmers, which is only leading to an increase in production, 
     and an oversupply, and commodity prices plummeting? 90% of 
     the current farm funding is going to less than one-third of 
     the producers in this country, who are located in 15 states. 
     You can imagine that those 15 states are represented on the 
     Agriculture Committees, where there is a prevailing attitude 
     to keep the status quo.

  Mark Edelman, Iowa State University Extension to Communities, October 
1999:

       While targeting federal assistance to medium and small 
     farmers and those that are financially vulnerable is often 
     discussed during the outbreak of a farm crisis, the bulk of 
     the emergency payments are not distributed according to those 
     criteria. Up to this point, Congress and farm interests have 
     not been willing to target the bulk of the farm program 
     payments in ways that exclude or penalize larger farmers, or 
     that arbitrarily reward medium, small or financially 
     vulnerable farmers.

  Elizabeth Becker, New York Times, May 2001:

       Supporters of farm subsidies, which were enacted in the 
     Depression, argue that they needed to save the family farm. 
     But government documents indicate that the prime 
     beneficiaries hardly fit the image of small, hardscrabble 
     farmers. Because eligibility is based on acreage planted with 
     subsidized crops in the past, the farmers who have the 
     biggest spreads benefit the most.

  Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs, Nebraska, July 2001:

       The single most effective step Congress could take to 
     strengthen family farms would be to stop subsidizing large 
     farms to drive their neighbors out of business.

  In a recent Wall Street Journal article (October 3, 2001), called 
``Nuts to You,'' a story outlines the federal government's continuing 
love affair with federal subsidies.

       In short, at a time when voters want Congress to be 
     serious, we're seeing Washington at its worst. Once upon a 
     time, it was possible to argue that farm supports kept small-
     time growers on the land. But nowadays they are little more 
     than huge wealth transfers from average taxpayers to well-to-
     do farmers, many of whom work the land only part-time.
       Based on the amount of a crop produced, these subsidies go 
     to big landholders who collect the cash and then buy up the 
     land around them to collect still more. According to one 
     recent study, only 10 percent of all farmers get 61 percent 
     of all of the federal subsidies. Florida's Fanjul family has 
     made a killing in sugar, another crop vital to the war 
     effort.

  Even my colleague and distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, criticized current farm policies 
for sending a greater share of Government subsidies to large farms 
instead of the more vulnerable smaller farms and for making it more 
difficult for young people to go into farming by driving up land 
values.
  In reviewing the General Accounting Office report, Senator Harkin was 
quoted in the Des Moines Register, July 2001, as saying that the GAO 
report ``proves that we can and should be doing more to ensure that 
these payments are distributed fairly.'' And Senator Harkin further was 
quoted as saying, ``[T]he bottom line is we must have a fairer system 
for providing support to farmers in the next farm bill.''
  More recently, the administration stepped into the debate to urge the 
Congress to curb its appetite for Federal subsidies and extend more 
benefits to smaller farming entities. The administration's report makes 
several important points to the Congress, including this particular 
comment:

       Even the most carefully designed government intervention 
     distorts markets and resource allocation, produces unintended 
     consequences, and spreads benefits unevenly. We cannot afford 
     to keep relearning the lessons of the past.

  However, we are not reauthorizing the farm bill today. The Senate 
will consider legislation to reauthorize the Freedom to Farm bill in 
the coming year. However, what we are considering today is equally 
important, the approval of annual spending for USDA to support farming 
entities.
  When considering any spending measure, we are obligated to ensure the 
fair and appropriate spending of billions of taxpayer dollars. If we do 
nothing to ensure equity today in this agriculture appropriations bill, 
the ultimate outcome is that half of this money will go to the large 
and very large farming operations, many of them agribusinesses, with 
little left for small to medium farmers that might demonstrate a 
greater need. It is time to change this alarming trend.
  Mr. President, I am, once again, greatly disappointed to report the 
amount of flagrant porkbarrel spending in this bill. This year's 
Agriculture spending bill includes $372 million in questionable 
earmarks, exceeding last year's level by $136 million. Unfortunately, 
it appears that the porkbarrel ``business as usual'' attitude reigns 
once again.
  Few of the annual appropriations bills are more loaded with 
unrequested, low-priority earmarks than this one. Despite the urging 
from the administration to eliminate the excessive special interest 
earmarks in the Agriculture appropriations bill, the appropriators 
tacked on 395 of the usual garden-variety, special interest earmarks.
  I, obviously, will not go through all 395, but let's take a look at 
the top 10 porkbarrel projects in this year's Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  My colleagues will note that all of these earmarks are specifically 
designated to a specific State or a specific entity:

[[Page S11075]]

  No. 10, $150,000 for potato breeding research at Aberdeen, ID;
  No. 9, $250,000 for a beaver control program in Louisiana;
  No. 8, $50,000 specifically for the Oregon Garden;
  No. 7, $300,000 to the Tick Research Unit at Kerrville, TX;
  No. 6, $500,000 for the Honey Bee Laboratory in Baton Rouge, LA;
  No. 5, $300,000 for a coyote control program in West Virginia. That 
one particularly interests me since in my home State we have a lot of 
coyotes. I do not see any money in there for the control of coyotes in 
the great State of Arizona or in any place else in the Southwest, but 
perhaps, as in most cases, with a lot of appropriations bills, there is 
a unique problem in the State of West Virginia.
  No. 4, $750,000 to Western Kentucky University to examine the use of 
chicken litter as a fertilizer or nutrient source. I hope there is a 
careful division between those two choices. It could have serious 
consequences. But I am sure the folks at Western Kentucky University 
are well equipped to make sure there is no overlap between using 
chicken litter as a fertilizer or as a nutrient source.
  No. 3, $435,000 for weed control in North Dakota. They must have a 
terrific problem out there in North Dakota because year after year we 
find this weed control money going to the great State of North Dakota. 
I hope they get it under control soon. Of course, no other States, 
obviously, in the view of the appropriators, have a weed problem--
except in the great State of North Dakota.
  No. 2, $90,000 to study the use of acoustics in aquaculture research 
at the National Center for Physical Acoustics; and then,
  No. 1, $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute--$500,000 for that 
institute of higher learning in Montana, which obviously is very badly 
needed up there.
  Even the reliable earmarks for the National Center for Peanut 
Competitiveness and shrimp aquaculture are included. I believe that the 
National Center for Peanut Competitiveness is doing very well because 
we continue, every year, to make sure that peanut competitiveness is 
one of our highest priority projects. I will supply for the Record the 
many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars that have been 
devoted to peanut competitiveness.
  Funding has never been requested for the National Center for Peanut 
Competitiveness, yet it has been funded by the appropriators for 5 
years. And shrimp aquaculture in Arizona and other States has been a 
consistent beneficiary of taxpayer dollars for 9 years. Unfortunately, 
there is little explanation included to justify why targeted Federal 
dollars for earmarked projects are more important than other programs 
to protect food safety or more directly support farm programs in the 
bill.

  This is a spending spree. So far this year more than $8.5 billion of 
pork has been included in 10 appropriations bills, including this 
Agriculture spending bill.
  We are at war. We must do better and heed the words of the Office of 
Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, who said:

       Everything ought to be held up to scrutiny. . . . 
     Situations like this can have clarifying benefit. People who 
     could not identify a low priority or lousy program before may 
     now see the need.

  Apparently, we are not heeding Mr. Daniel's words. And I do not 
believe that anyone can say there are no low-priority items in this 
bill before us.
  I urge my colleagues to work harder to curb our habit of funneling 
resources to provincial ventures. Serving the public good should 
continue to be our mandate, and we can only live up to that charge by 
keeping the process free of unfair and unnecessary spending that unduly 
burdens the American taxpayer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am constrained to say a few words in 
defense of the committee's decisions with regard to the total overall 
spending in this bill. It is below the President's budget request. 
Twenty-two percent of the funds in this bill are discretionary; 78 
percent of the funds in the bill are mandatory--mandatory, meaning 
there is legislation directing the spending be made to those that are 
defined as eligible for the benefits under the law, under statutes that 
have been passed by Congress and are now the law of the land.
  So the subcommittee, in working to identify the appropriate levels of 
funding, has to look at the law, provide the funds that the Department 
of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the other 
agencies funded in this bill say will be due and owing by the 
Government under statutes that require the money to be paid.
  Here is an example of one of the programs. It is the Women, Infants, 
and Children Nutrition Program. The participation in that program is 
defined by law. The eligibility for participation is defined by law. If 
someone is eligible and presents themselves to a facility where the 
program is administered, they are entitled to the benefits. They are 
entitled to medical care. They are entitled to food supplements. And 
the funding for that has to be appropriated. So this bill contains 
funding for the WIC Program.
  I mentioned, in earlier comments, that we may have to appropriate 
more money in a supplemental later on for the WIC Program because 
participation is outstripping the predictions. So far this year, in 
this new fiscal year that started October 1, we can see the trend is 
such that we may not have appropriated enough money for that program.
  The Senate will approve that request if it comes from the Department, 
if it comes from the President, for a supplemental for that program.
  Food Stamps is another program. Because of higher rates of 
unemployment than we had last year, the Food Stamp Program 
participation has begun to increase. So there are increases for those 
program activities.
  There are farm programs, as the Senator correctly described, that 
require the payment of dollars to those who are eligible for support in 
agricultural production. That also is defined by law.
  We don't decide how much each person gets in this appropriations 
bill. That has already been decided when we passed the farm bill. This 
bill provides the funds to the Department to make the program dollar 
payments that are required by law to the eligible beneficiaries.
  On the discretionary funding side, the 22 percent of the funds in 
this bill over which we did have total control, we came in under the 
President's budget request. That is the point I wanted to make on that. 
On the part of the budget the Congress controls and on which this 
Appropriations Committee is making decisions with respect to dollar 
amounts, we are under the President's budget request.
  So to accuse the committee of throwing money around that is not 
needed, funding programs that are not justified, doesn't hold up when 
we look at the exact spending levels compared with the budget request, 
compared with the economic conditions, compared with the statutes that 
require funding for specific purposes under the law.
  The committee has done a good job, in my opinion. That is why the 
Senator from Wisconsin and I are proud to present this bill to the 
Senate today, and we hope the Senate will support it.
  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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________