[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15550-15619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Cochran amendment be laid aside.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I intend to 
propose an amendment. I will be glad to discuss it at this time. 
Perhaps the Senator from Nevada could clarify for me when it might be 
appropriate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when Senators Voinovich and Leahy took the 
floor, the purpose was to allow them to speak about our dearly departed 
friend. At the time the quorum was called for, we were trying to 
resolve this issue that was on the floor--the Harkin amendment and the 
second degree by the manager of the bill. We are almost ready to do 
that. I was asked by the Senator from Iowa to hold things up until that 
was resolved. That is why I offered the objection. We should be in a 
position soon to move forward, but I think the Senator should go ahead 
and speak.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is it the desire of the distinguished 
manager, the Senator from Mississippi, that I go ahead and discuss the 
amendment or wait until a resolution of the pending Harkin and Cochran 
amendments?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the Senator 
proceeding. I think it would expedite the proceedings of the Senate if 
he would discuss his amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a time agreement on this 
amendment. Whatever is agreeable to the Senator from Mississippi and 
the Senator from Wisconsin would be fine.
  I will be proposing an amendment, joined by Senators Gregg and 
Schumer, that will stop the Federal Government from wasting taxpayers' 
dollars on an unnecessary and outdated sugar program that costs 
consumers as much as $2 billion in inflated sugar prices.
  I ask unanimous consent to have Senator Lugar added as a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. The amendment is simple. It withholds funding for the 
costly Federal sugar program for fiscal year 2001.
  Mr. President, my colleagues and I are here today to say enough is 
enough. The American taxpayers have subsidized the sugar industry, with 
price support loans and strict import quotas in various forms, since 
1934. Each year American taxpayers pay close to $2 billion in 
artificially high sugar prices and this year paid an additional $60 
million to bail out sugar producers facing massive loan defaults.
  We're not here today to dispute the choice of sugar as a consumer 
product. Most Americans buy some type of sugar product on a daily 
basis--a can of soda or a candy bar--and most Americans buy various 
types of sugar products every time they shop in a supermarket. What we 
object to, as consumers purchase these products, is that the federal 
government is unfairly overcharging them.
  The sugar program has outlived other agricultural commodity subsidies 
that have since been phased out through past farm bills. However, the 
retention of this flawed program has not been dictated by common sense 
or sound economics, but political influence.
  Originally, the sugar program was intended to prop up sugar prices to 
ensure a profit for sugar farmers. Unfortunately, the higher prices 
result in

[[Page 15551]]

the usual ``trickle-down'' effect. Food companies have to pay the 
higher price for sugar, which is then passed on in the form of higher 
prices for sugar products. The average consumer ends up paying the cost 
of sugar subsidies in the grocery store.
  Let me take a few moments to explain why federal assistance for the 
sugar program should end.
  First of all, it is unfair to American consumers. A recent GAO report 
confirms what we have known all along, that American consumers pay 
close to $2 billion each year in inflated sugar prices. Mandatory price 
quotas are imposed on American-grown sugar at roughly 22-24 cents a 
pound compared to 6 cents a pound for sugar grown in other parts of the 
world.
  This past year, in 1999, U.S. sugar prices were four times higher 
than the world price.
  The benefits of the sugar program are hopelessly lopsided. 
Approximately 42 percent of all sugar program benefits go to 1 percent 
of growers. These are not small family farmers, but big sugar tycoons 
who obtained millions through this federal subsidy. Four sugar cane 
companies in Florida received more than $20 million. One grower 
receives close to $65 million annually from this subsidy. About 30 
sugar growers were also able to collect one million each from this 
subsidy. That is not small business; that is not a small farmer.
  Mr. President, these sugar growers--and I will be naming them and 
identifying them--have been incredibly generous politically. They have 
been heavily involved in contributing to both parties in very large 
amounts of money.
  Second, the federal sugar program is anti-free market and anti-free 
trade. The sugar program severely limits imports of lower-priced 
foreign sugar into the American market so farmers can make a profit 
through higher prices.
  The end result, unfortunately, is that this overpricing has caused an 
overproduction of sugar. This excess supply of sugar drives prices 
below the guaranteed price level. This type of policy is absurd and has 
damaged our credibility in the world market.
  Large-scale sugar growers in Florida contribute directly to the 
devastation of the Everglades wetlands through increasing sugar cane 
production. Again, high sugar prices lead to overproduction of sugar. 
Florida's sugarcane industry is situated near one of America's most 
pristine freshwater lakes. The direct conversion of sensitive wetlands 
to sugarcane production and the accompanying agricultural runoff 
flowing into the Everglades have a direct impact in the decimation of 
one of America's most treasured ecosystems.
  For years, sugar cane producers were able to resist and avoid any 
responsibility for cleanup. The small portion they are now required to 
pay for cleanup hardly makes a dent into the billions estimated for 
restoration of the Everglades.
  Who makes up the difference in these costs? Again, the taxpayers make 
up the difference by paying nearly a third of the restoration costs.
  I have spent a fair amount of time in the State of Florida. There is 
a growing, deep, and very legitimate concern about the Everglades. 
There is no doubt that the flow of pesticides into the Everglades is 
directly related to sugarcane growing and has had a direct impact on 
the ecology of that very fragile ecosystem which is an American 
treasure, not just a Florida treasure. We should at best not subsidize 
people who engage in the growing of sugarcane which causes direct 
damage to one of the most beautiful spots in all the world.
  Finally, American taxpayers had to pay for a multi-million bail out 
for sugar processors who did not meet their loan obligations. Earlier 
this year, the administration spent $60 million to purchase more than 
150,000 tons of surplus sugar to prevent mass forfeitures.
  Why are taxpayers bearing the brunt of these defaulted loans? Because 
a fundamental flaw in the federal sugar policy allows sugar producers 
to forfeit their crops to USDA if the market price falls below the loan 
rate. Sugar producers turn over excess sugar to USDA, keep their loan 
money and the federal government has to absorb the loss. In other 
words, if sugar producers are unable to sell their sugar, the federal 
government promises to buy all the sugar they produce.
  Often, forfeited sugar is sold at a substantial loss to the federal 
government. The federal government has no options under the existing 
sugar program--if the government does not spend millions buying excess 
sugar, it loses out anyway as sugar processors default on their loans 
and are not required to pay back to the federal government. With a 
surplus of sugar in the world market, the federal government will not 
be able to sell this excess unwanted sugar. It's a double-whammy.
  Mr. President, these forfeitures are a direct cost to the American 
taxpayers.
  And, even worse, this may be only a foreshadowing of a tidal wave yet 
to come. The federal government may be forced to spend millions more in 
purchasing additional sugar if the sugar industry has their way. The 
big sugar lobby is already pressuring USDA to purchase more sugar at a 
cost of $100 to $500 million on further sugar bail-outs before the end 
of this year.
  How is this absurdity allowed to continue?
  Mr. President, the answer is clear. The sugar program is alive 
because of well-financed sugar interests, or the ``Iron Triangle'' of 
the commodity world. Sugar interest represent one of the highest soft 
money contributors nationwide.
  Between 1995 to 1999, the sugar industry contributed more than $7 
million in soft-money contributions, more than any other commodity 
group. In 1999 alone, the sugar industry contributed $1.5 million in 
soft-money contributions to both sides of the aisle. The famous Fanjul 
family of Flo-Sun sugar industries, known as the ``First Family of 
Corporate Welfare,'' are among the most generous benefactors in soft 
money contributions. Sugar interests are cashing in at the register at 
the expense of consumers, and turning that profit into political 
influence to keep their stronghold on this federal subsidy.
  Before I conclude, I want to highlight several commentaries about the 
sugar program in a few prominent media programs and articles.
  Fallacies of the sugar program earned special coverage as part of a 
``Fleecing of America'' segment on NBC's ``Nightly News with Tom 
Brokaw.'' During this segment, Art Jaeger from the Consumer Federation 
of America claims, ``the program gives too little money to the farmers 
who need the help, too much money to farmers who don't need the help.''
  ABC World News Tonight highlighted sugar subsidies as part of its 
``Its Your Money'' segments, telling all Americans that maintaining the 
sugar program is a way ''to guarantee that even more farmers will take 
advantage of this sweet deal, producing even more sugar, meaning more 
taxpayer bailouts.''
  The Center for Responsive Politics touts the sugar program as ``white 
gold'' for sugar producers and characterizes it as the ``Energizer 
Bunny of U.S. government policy,'' It keeps going and going with no end 
in sight.
  The Center for International Economics stated that the ``U.S. Sugar 
Program does not sit comfortably as part of U.S. trade policy. High 
sugar protection harms the credibility of U.S. initiatives for freer 
trade.'' The World trade Organization has pointed out its 
inefficiencies. The World Bank has dedicated consideration attention to 
the high costs of U.S. sugar policies.
  The National Center for Public Policy Research concluded that the 
sugar program was ``one of the federal government's most ridiculous 
programs'' and should be ended.
  In a recent USA Today editorial, advice was offered to politicians--
``Repeal this sweetheart deal before another crop of unneeded sugar 
gets planted.''
  The Coalition for Sugar Reform also supports elimination of this 
costly program. The Coalition represents such groups as Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Everglades Trust, Consumers for World Trade, 
and the United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Association.

[[Page 15552]]

  In a letter of support for ending the program, the Coalition states 
the amendment we are offering today ``will finally compel change in a 
program that can no longer be sustained or justified.''
  What more evidence do we need to end this lop-sided sugar policy? Why 
should the federal government and American taxpayers be expected to 
continue support for this program that is running rampantly out of 
control and clearly violates free market and free trade principles?
  Mr. President, I want to make clear once again--today's vote is 
important to protect American consumers and taxpayers.
  The recent million-dollar sugar bail-out is the final straw that will 
break the camel's back for this failed program.
  I would like to quote from the New York Times editorial of July 14, 
1997.

       A combination of import restrictions, guaranteed prices and 
     subsidized loans keeps sugar prices artificially high, 
     roughly twice the level in other countries, and thus 
     transfers about $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a 
     handful of large sugar growers. Almost half of the benefits 
     from the sugar program go to little more than 1 percent of 
     growers. The high prices act like a tax on food, hitting 
     hardest at poor families who typically spend a large fraction 
     of their budget on food and other necessities. If the 
     Schumer-Miller proposal passes, sugar prices could fall 20 
     cents for a five-pound bag.
       The sugar growers justify their subsidies as needed to 
     counter foreign-subsidized imports and to protect the jobs of 
     domestic workers. Neither argument withstands scrutiny. There 
     are ample rules to prevent foreign countries from ``dumping'' 
     government-subsidized sugar in United States markets. Also, 
     by propping up raw sugar prices, the program has driven half 
     the United States sugar refiners out of business or out of 
     the country, taking jobs with them.
       There is a second, powerful reason to eliminate sugar 
     subsidies. They breed excessive production of sugar cane in 
     environmentally sensitive areas. In the Florida Everglades, 
     about a half-million acres of wetlands have been converted to 
     sugar cane production. Excessive sugar cane production has 
     interrupted water flows and contaminated the Everglades with 
     polluted agricultural run-off.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times 
editorial and the Wall Street Journal article of April 27, 2000, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2000]

          Big Sugar Seeks Bailout, Gives Money to Help Get Way

                          (By Bruce Ingersoll)

       Washington.--Never have old hands at the Agriculture 
     Department seen such a turnout: 11 U.S. senators trooping 
     into Secretary Dan Glickman's office to lobby for a big 
     sugar-industry bailout.
       ``When you have 11 senators showing up,'' says Florida 
     sugar-company executive Robert Buker, ``that's horse-
     power''--enough power, he believes, to push an ambivalent 
     Clinton administration into an unprecedented market 
     intervention to bail out distressed U.S. sugar producers.
       The producers are floundering beneath a market-depressing 
     glut of sugar. Comes October, they face another problem: a 
     ten-fold jump in Mexican sugar imports. The federal sugar-
     loan program, which has cosseted them for nearly two decades 
     is suddenly in danger of imploding.
       So, to shore up the domestic market, sugar lobbyists are 
     imploring administration officials to authorize a bold sugar-
     buying spree. Only by spending $100 million now to buy sugar 
     and boost market prices, they contend, can the government 
     hope to head off a much costlier wave of sugar-loan 
     forfeitures later this summer, in the midst of an election 
     campaign.
       Fighting the sugar lobby at every turn is a well-financed 
     alliance of consumer groups, candy makers, confectioners and 
     other major users of sweeteners. Their vision of the sweet 
     hereafter is a deregulated sugar industry, and they want the 
     administration to let the market sink. Says Jeff Nedelman, 
     spokesman for the Coalition for Sugar Reform: ``The whole 
     house of cards is starting to collapse.''
       The government has long managed to keep U.S. sugar prices 
     far above the world price, largely by curtailing imports of 
     lower-cost sugar. That benefits producers, obviously, though 
     it also means consumers get stuck with a price-support tab--
     estimated at more than $1 billion a year--in the form of 
     higher sugar, candy and soft-drink prices.
       But in recent months, due to rising sugar plantings and 
     improving yields, prices have fallen below the guaranteed 
     price-support levels of 18 cents a pound for raw cane sugar 
     and 22.9 cents for refined beet sugar. Lately, price are up a 
     little in anticipation of a bailout. Under the loan program, 
     sugar processors who put up sugar as collateral are entitled 
     to forfeit their crop, keep the loan money and let the 
     government eat the loss.
       Processors are threatening to forfeit as much as 1.4 
     million tons of sugar valued at an estimated $550 million. 
     The sugar lobby's pitch to Mr. Glickman and White House 
     officials is that buying 300,000 to 350,000 tons immediately 
     will give the market enough lift to avert massive forfeitures 
     at the end of August and September. Sugar prices are at a 20-
     year low,'' says Sen. Larry Crag, an Idaho Republican. ``The 
     potential for loan forfeitures . . . is very real.''
       The senators visiting Mr. Glickman on March 26--all but one 
     from major sugar-producing states--told the agriculture 
     secretary that ``he needed to get on the stick,'' says Mr. 
     Buker, senior vice president of United States Sugar Corp., 
     the nation's largest processor. On April 6, a dozen sugar-
     state lawmakers met with White House Chief of Staff John 
     Podesta. They and the industry fear costly forfeitures would 
     be a public-relations debacle, sparking moves in Congress to 
     scrap the shaky program.
       Administration officials wouldn't be so hesitant about 
     buying heaps of sugar if they knew what to do with it. One 
     option is to sell excess sugar on the world market at cut-
     rate prices, but that would-be just as controversial as 
     Europe's oft-deplored dumping practices. Another is to donate 
     it overseas as humanitarian aid, but so far no country has 
     shown any interest in empty calories.
       Limited amounts could possibly be used for school lunches 
     and other feeding programs. The only other viable option is 
     to use it as feedback for ethanol plants, but it would have 
     to be dirt-cheap to compete with corn, which sells for a 
     nickel a pound.
       Diverting sugar into ethanol, a fuel additive, would 
     displace corn, costing farmers $100 million a year, the 
     National Corn Growers Association argues. They shouldn't have 
     to ``shoulder the burden'' of bailing out sugar producers, 
     the association says.
       Adding to the difficulty of a bailout is the opposition 
     from politicians who represent more sugar consumers than 
     producers. Splurging on sugar would be a ``quick fix'' of 
     ``dubious legality,'' 15 House members asserted in a 
     bipartisan letter. It would bestow a ``bonanza'' on 
     processors, without preventing forfeitures in the end, Senate 
     Agriculture Committee Chairman Richard Lugar cautioned last 
     week. The Indiana Republican also warned that ``dumping'' 
     sugar overseas would infuriate trading partners.
       Ultimately, though, such considerations may not offset the 
     political leverage of Big Sugar, which gave Democrats and 
     Republicans $7.2 million between 1995 and 1999, more than any 
     other commodity group in Washington. The fact that the 
     meeting with Mr. Glickman was attended by New Jersey Sen. 
     Robert Torricelli, who hails from a state with no sugar 
     growers but is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
     Committee, highlights sugar's importance in an election year.
       At least three sugar states--Michigan, Ohio and Florida--
     are seen as being in play in the presidential race. Earlier 
     this year, Florida Crystals Inc., owned by the Cuban-born 
     Fanjul family, gave Sen. Torricelli's committee $50,000. Last 
     July, Alfson Fanjul hosted a $25,000-a-couple dinner, 
     attended by President Clinton, raising more than $1 million 
     for the Florida Democratic Party. Mr. Fanjul is renowned for 
     calling up the president to discuss sugar-related issues.
       Particularly desperate are three big Hawaiian sugar-cane 
     producers, Gay & Robinson Sugar Co., an Alexander & Baldwin 
     Inc. subsidiary and Amfac/JMB-Hawaii; Inc., whose first 
     shipload of the season is due to reach the mainland next 
     week. Unlike their counterparts, they are ``price-takers,'' 
     says the lobbyist, Dalton Yancey. Under an exclusive contract 
     with a refinery on San Francisco Bay, they are obligated to 
     base the price of arriving shiploads on the going New York 
     price, no matter how far it falls below the guaranteed price-
     support level. The contract doesn't allow putting sugar under 
     loan or forfeiting it.
       Adding to the industry's problems is a looming surge of 
     Mexican imports. In October, under, terms of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement, Mexico will be free to ship 
     250,000 metric tons of low-duty sugar into the U.S.
       Despite more than a 20% drop in prices since 1996, sugar 
     production is still much more profitable than raising grain 
     or cotton. The result is that the nation's 10,000 cans and 
     beet growers are shifting more land into sugar. Their 
     lobbyists portray them as suffering from agriculture's woes, 
     including crop failures and lost markets, when in fact most 
     fare better than nonsugar producers.
       All told, the sugar problem threatens to haunt the White 
     House and Vice President Al Gore's presidential bid. It could 
     complicate the coming visit of Mexico's president to 
     Washington, and could further hamstring U.S. efforts to open 
     up overseas markets for meat, corn sweetener and other 
     foodstuffs.
       Ironically, the administration could have avoided the whole 
     sticky mess. But Messrs.

[[Page 15553]]

     Glickman and Podesta, under intense industry pressure, went 
     along with an administrative decision last fall to reinstate 
     the guaranteed minimum price, even though under a 1996 change 
     in the loan program it shouldn't have been offered to 
     processors.
       Now, the industry is arguing that ``sugar is in crisis,'' 
     in the words of Jack Roney, economist for the American Sugar 
     Alliance.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 14, 1997]

                         End Sugar's Sweet Deal

       The House will vote again soon on whether to eliminate loan 
     subsidies that keep sugar prices high while fostering 
     destruction of the Florida Everglades. A bipartisan proposal 
     sponsored by Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Dan 
     Miller, Republican of Florida, to phase out sugar subsidies 
     barely lost last year. It may come up for another vote this 
     week in the form of an amendment to an appropriations bill. 
     That will give the House a second chance to put the interests 
     of consumers and the environment over those of a small crowd 
     of politically powerful sugar growers.
       A combination of import restrictions, guaranteed prices and 
     subsidized loans keep sugar prices artificially high, roughly 
     twice the level in other countries, and thus transfers about 
     $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a handful of large 
     sugar growers. Almost half of the benefits from the sugar 
     program go to little more than 1 percent of growers. The high 
     prices act like a tax on food, hitting hardest at poor 
     families who typically spend a large fraction of their budget 
     on food and other necessities. If the Schumer-Miller proposal 
     passes, sugar prices could fall 20 cents for a five-pound 
     bag.
       The sugar growers justify their subsidies as needed to 
     counter foreign-subsidized imports and to protect the jobs of 
     domestic workers. Neither argument withstands scrutiny. There 
     are ample rules to prevent foreign countries. from 
     ``dumping'' government-subsized sugar in United States 
     markets. Also, by propping up raw sugar prices, the program 
     has driven half the United States sugar refiners out of 
     business or out of the country, taking jobs with them.
       There is a second, powerful reason to eliminate sugar 
     subsidies. They breed excessive production of sugar cane in 
     environmentally sensitive areas. In the Florida Everglades, 
     about a half-million acres of wetlands have been converted to 
     sugar cane production. Excessive sugar cane production has 
     interrupted water flows and contaminated the Everglades with 
     polluted agricultural run-off.
       When the Schumer-Miller bill comes up for a vote, 
     representatives who claim to defend the interests of ordinary 
     consumers ought to vote yes. The bill lost narrowly last year 
     in part because some urban representatives--including Gary 
     Ackerman, Jose Serrano and Thomas Manton of New York--voted 
     no. They harmed their own constituents but can make amends 
     this week.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I now quote from the April 27, 2000, 
article from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Big Sugar Seeks 
Bailout.''

       Never have old hands at the Agriculture Department seen 
     such a turnout: 11 U.S. senators trooping into Secretary Dan 
     Glickman's office to lobby for a big sugar-industry bailout.
       ``When you have 11 senators showing up,'' says Florida 
     sugar-company executive Robert Buker, ``that's horsepower''--
     enough power, he believes, to push an ambivalent Clinton 
     administration into an unprecedented market intervention to 
     bail out distressed U.S. sugar producers.
       The producers are floundering beneath a market-depressing 
     glut of sugar. Come October, they face another problem: a 
     tenfold jump in Mexican sugar imports. The federal sugar-loan 
     program, which has cosseted them for nearly two decades, is 
     suddenly in danger of imploding.
       So, to shore up the domestic market, sugar lobbyists are 
     imploring administration officials to authorize a bold sugar-
     buying spree. Only by spending $100 million now to buy sugar 
     and boost market prices, they contend, can the government 
     hope to head off a much costlier wave of sugar-loan 
     forfeitures later this summer, in the midst of an election 
     campaign.

  Mr. President, the article is very revealing in that it describes the 
top contributors in the year 1999 and the amounts of money that have 
been distributed. It is quite remarkable in its entirety.
  I quote from an article in Time magazine, November 1998, entitled: 
``Sweet Deal, Why Are These Men Smiling? The Reason is in Your Sugar 
Bowl.''

       Occupying a breathtaking spot on the southeast coast of the 
     Dominican Republic, Casa de Campo is one of the Caribbean's 
     most storied resorts . . . and that's truth in advertising. 
     The place has 14 swimming pools, a world-class shooting 
     ground, PGA-quality golf courses and $1,000-a-night villas.
       A thousand miles to the northwest, in the Florida 
     Everglades, the vista is much different. Chemical runoff from 
     the corporate cultivation of sugar cane imperils vegetation 
     and wildlife. Polluted water spills out of the glades into 
     Florida Bay, forming a slimy, greenish brown stain where 
     fishing once thrived.
       Both sites are the by-product of corporate welfare.
       In this case the beneficiaries are the Fanjul family of 
     Palm Beach, Fla. The name means nothing to most Americans, 
     but the Fanjuls might be considered the First Family of 
     Corporate Welfare. They own Flo-Sun Inc., one of the nation's 
     largest producers of raw sugar. As such, they benefit from 
     federal policies that compel American consumers to pay 
     artificially high prices for sugar.
       Since the Fanjuls control about one-third of Florida's 
     sugar-cane production, that means they collect at least $60 
     million a year in subsidies, according to an analysis of 
     General Accounting Office calculations. It's the sweetest of 
     deals, and it's made the family, the proprietors of Casa de 
     Campo, one of America's richest.
       The subsidy has had one other consequence: it has helped 
     create an environmental catastrophe in the Everglades. 
     Depending on whom you talk to, it will cost anywhere from $3 
     billion to $8 billion to repair the Everglades by building 
     new dikes, rerouting canals and digging new lakes.
       Growers are committed to pay up to $240 million over 20 
     years for the cleanup. Which means the industry that created 
     much of the problem will have to pay only a fraction of the 
     cost to correct it. Government will pay the rest. As for the 
     Fanjuls, a spokesman says they are committed to pay about 
     $4.5 million a year.

  Do a little arithmetic. We got $60 million in Federal subsidies, of 
which they will pay $4.5 million for the Everglades. Not a bad deal.

       How did this disaster happen? With your tax dollars. How 
     will it be fixed? With your tax dollars.
       It is not news that sugar is richly subsidized, or that the 
     Fanjuls have profited so handsomely. Even as recently as 
     1995, when Congress passed legislation to phase out price 
     supports for a cornucopia of agricultural products, raw sugar 
     was spared. Through a combination of loan guarantees and 
     tariffs on imported sugar, domestic farmers like the Fanjuls 
     are shielded from real-world prices. So in the U.S., raw 
     sugar sells for about twenty-two cents a pound, more than 
     double the prices most of the world pays. The cost to 
     Americans: at least $1.4 billion in the form of higher prices 
     for candy, soda and other sweet things of life. A GAO study, 
     moreover, has estimated that nearly half the subsidy goes to 
     large sugar producers like the Fanjuls.
       A spokesman for Flo-Sun, Jorge Dominicis, said the company 
     disagrees with the GAO's estimate on the profits the Fanjuls 
     and other growers derive from the program.
       ``That is supposed to imply somehow that our companies 
     receive $60 million in guaranteed profits,'' he said, ``and 
     that is flat-out not true. Our companies don't make anywhere 
     near that kind of profit.''
       Dominicis, like other proponents of the sugar program, 
     contends that it doesn't cost taxpayers a penny and is not 
     unlike government protection of other American industries. 
     ``If our [sugar policy] is corporate welfare, which I don't 
     believe it is, then all trade policy is corporate welfare,'' 
     he says.
       Flo-Sun is run by four Fanjul brothers, Alfonso 
     (``Alfie''), Jose (``Pepe''), Andres and Alexander. Their 
     family dominated Cuba's sugar industry for decades, and they 
     came to this country with their parents in 1959, after Fidel 
     Castro seized power. The Fanjuls arrived just as a U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers project to control the flow of water in 
     the Florida Everglades made large-scale development possible. 
     The total acreage planted in sugar cane there soared--from 
     50,000 acres in 1960 to more than 420,000 today.
       Within that swampy paradise lies yet another subsidy. Each 
     year, according to a 1997 estimate, the Army Corps of 
     Engineers spends $63 million to control water flow in central 
     and south Florida. This enables growers to obtain water when 
     they need it or restrain the flow during heavy rains. Of the 
     $63 million, the Corps estimates $52 million is spent on 
     agriculture, mainly sugar-cane farmers, in the Everglades.

  The article further states:

       Though by no means the largest special interest in 
     Washington, the sugar lobby is one of the most well-heeled. 
     And among growers, the Fanjuls are big givers. And among 
     growers, the Fanjuls are big givers. Family members and 
     corporate executives have contributed nearly $1 million so 
     far in this decade, dividing the money fairly evenly between 
     political parties.
       This knack for covering for political bases carries all the 
     way to the top of the Fanjul empire. Alfonso Fanjul served as 
     co-chairman of Bill Clinton's Florida campaign in 1992. His 
     brother Pepe was national vice chairman of finance for Bob 
     Dole's presidential campaign in 1996 and was host to a 
     $1,000-a-head fund raiser for Dole at his Palm Beach mansion. 
     After Clinton's 1992 victory, Alfie was a member of the 
     select group invited by the Clinton camp to attend the 
     President-elect's ``economic summit'' in Little Rock, Ark.
       Careful readers of Kenneth Starr's impeachment report to 
     Congress will note that

[[Page 15554]]

     on Feb. 19, 1996. . . . The two spoke for 22 minutes. The 
     topic: a proposed tax on sugar farmers to pay for the 
     Everglades cleanup. Fanjul reportedly told the President he 
     and other growers opposed such a step, since it would cost 
     them millions. Such a tax has never been passed.

  That is access.
  I will be glad to continue this debate, and I will be glad to again 
enter into a time agreement on this amendment when it is appropriate 
for me to have it considered by the full Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback and Senator 
Fitzgerald as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Mississippi--I know he has the 
right to the floor--could I make a request to my colleagues? I have 
been on the floor for several hours waiting to introduce an amendment. 
I ask unanimous consent that after the McCain amendment I be allowed to 
introduce an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand we have been able to reach an agreement on 
the list of amendments remaining in order to be offered to this bill. I 
am prepared, now, to make that unanimous consent request.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to withhold and happy to yield to the Senator 
from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. One moment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand not all of the agreement can 
be agreed to at this point, but I will recite that which can be agreed 
to if there is no objection. We will see if there is.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 
remaining first-degree amendments in order to the pending Agriculture 
appropriations bill, that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments, and no points of order be considered waived by this 
agreement.
  I will submit a list of amendments rather than reading them.
  The list follows:

       Jeffords: Drug importation.
       Burns: Crop Insurance Program.
       B. Smith: Wildlife services.
       B. Smith: Relevant to list.
       B. Smith: Relevant.
       B. Smith: Relevant.
       B. Smith: Relevant.
       B. Smith: RU486.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       Abraham:Prescription drugs.
       Ashcroft: Relevant.
       Ashcroft: Relevant.
       Chafee: Sanctions.
       Warner: Relevant.
       Warner: Relevant.
       G. Smith: Goose related crop depredation.
       Santorum: National robotics consortium.
       Santorum: African farming.
       Collins:Relevant.
       Abraham:Relevant.
       Abraham:Asparagus.
       Gramm: Relevant to list.
       Gramm: Relevant.
       McCain: Relevant.
       McCain: Relevant.
       McCain: Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Nickles:Relevant.
       Campbell: Bison meat.
       Grams: Finpack.
       Grams: Ratites.
       Lott: Relevant to list.
       Lott: Relevant to list.
       Stevens:Relevant.
       Stevens:Relevant.
       Jeffords: Dairy exports.
       Hutchinson: Relevant.
       McConnell: Sulfites in wine.
       Sessions: Emergency feed operations.
       Sessions: Emergency feed operations.
       Sessions: Satsuma orange frost research.
       Specter:Amtrack.
       Thurmond: Relevant.
       Akaka: Agriculture product.
       Baucus: Oregon inlet (point of order).
       Baucus: Beef industry compensation.
       Baucus: Food Stamp Montana.
       Baucus: Northern plains.
       Baucus: Montana sheep industry.
       Baucus: Oregon inlet.
       Boxer: Citrus imports.
       Boxer: Organic wine.
       Boxer: Relevant.
       Byrd: Relevant.
       Byrd: Relevant.
       Cleland:Emergency loans, poultry producers.
       Conrad: Motion to instruct conferees.
       Conrad: Relevant.
       Conrad: Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant to any amendment on the list.
       Daschle:Relevant to any amendment on the list.
       Daschle:Strategic Energy Reserves.
       Daschle:Agricultural competition.
       Daschle:CRP contract integrity.
       Daschle:Wetlands pilot.
       Dodd: Oysters.
       Dodd: Relevant.
       Dorgan: Relevant.
       Dorgan: Relevant.
       Dorgan: Disaster aid.
       Dorgan: Bison meat.
       Dorgan: Food aid.
       Dorgan: Drug importation (with Jeffords).
       Durbin: Point of order/motion to strike re: hard rock 
     mining.
       Edwards: USDA community facilities.
       Edwards: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feinstein: Citrus.
       Feinstein: Rice.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Graham: Cuba sanctions.
       Graham: Citrus canker.
       Graham: Nursery crops.
       Graham: Relevant.
       Harkin: Emergency watershed.
       Harkin: GIPSA.
       Harkin: GIPSA emergency.
       Harkin: Meat and poultry inspection.
       Harkin: Agrability.
       Harkin: Renewable fuels.
       Harkin: Renewable fuels.
       Harkin: Methamphetamine.
       Harkin: FDA.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Inouye: Commodity Credit Corp (CCC).
       Inouye: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Kennedy: Food safety.
       Kennedy: Prescription drugs.
       Kohl: Relevant.
       Kohl: Relevant.
       Kohl: Relevant.
       Kohl: Manager's amendment.
       Landrieu: Agricultural research.
       Leahy: Relevant.
       Leahy: Relevant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Lieberman: Relevant.
       Lincoln: Relevant.
       Lincoln: Relevant.
       Reed: Lobster shell disease.
       Reed: Hunt River watershed (ground water source).
       Reed: Pocasset River plug (flood plain management).
       Reed: Pocasset River plug (flood plain management).
       Reed: Relevant.
       Reed: Relevant.
       Reid: Relevant.
       Reid: Relevant to any amendment on the list.
       Robb: Tobacco research.
       Torricelli: Speciality crops.
       Torricelli: Domestic violence.
       Torricelli: Lead.
       Torricelli: SOS domestic violence.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Wellstone: GIPSA funding.
       Wellstone: Calculation of farm income.
       Wellstone: Food Stamp study.
       Wellstone: Summer Food Program.
       Wellstone: Telework Amendment No. 1.
       Wellstone: Telework Amendment No. 2.
       Wyden: Relevant.
       Wyden: Relevant.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask consent that following the disposition of 
the above-listed amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and 
passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate. I also ask 
the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the 
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate, those being the entire subcommittee plus Senators Stevens 
and Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi still has the 
floor.

[[Page 15555]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, 
and also the Senator from Arizona, we will withdraw our objection now. 
We will allow Senator McCain to proceed to offer his amendment, if that 
is appropriate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The objection, not to the last part of the agreement?
  Mr. REID. I stated no objection to the agreement. The last part is 
out.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is suggesting it is okay for Senator McCain 
to proceed and complete action on his amendment?
  Mr. REID. What the Senator read is appropriate. There is provision in 
there, a little short paragraph at the end that you did not read. We do 
not agree with that. So the unanimous consent agreement----
  Mr. COCHRAN. As stated, you have no objection.
  Mr. REID. In the first two paragraphs, that is correct. I said that. 
I also state we have no objection to setting the Harkin amendment aside 
so the Senator from Arizona can now offer his amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the Harkin amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 3917

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Gregg, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. 
     Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment numbered 3917.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the sugar 
                                program)

       On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7  . Sugar Program.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel of the Department of 
     Agriculture to carry out section 156 of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I could spend more time. I ask unanimous 
consent an article from the Savannah Morning News entitled ``Two Sides 
of the American Dream'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Savannah Morning News, August 3, 1997]

                    Two Sides of the American Dream

                            (By Bob Sechler)

       By some accounts, Alfonso and Jose Fanjul personify the 
     American Dream--Cuban-born immigrants who arrived in the 
     United States almost 40 years ago, emerging as millionaire 
     sugar growers through pluck and hard work.
       But others say the brothers are better symbols of what ails 
     the country. Their ostentatious lifestyles, complete with 
     Palm Beach, Fla., mansions, yachts and chauffeured 
     limousines, are the spoils of a corporate welfare system that 
     rewards wheeler-dealers willing to ante up for political 
     influence, critics say.
       ``They know how to play the game, and they know who to hire 
     to play the game,'' said Joe Garcia, a representative of Save 
     the Everglades in Florida, an environmental group that has 
     tangled repeatedly with the Fanjuls (pronounced Fahn-hool) 
     and their Flo-Sun sugar empire.
       Regardless of which Fanjul family portrait proves most 
     accurate, Savannahians likely will get to know the brothers 
     well.
       The Fanjuls and Flo-Sun will hold a controlling interest in 
     Savannah Foods and Industries--a major local employer and an 
     80-year corporate fixture in Chatham County--if a proposed 
     merger with a Flo-Sun subsidiary is approved by Savannah 
     Foods' stockholders in October.
       ``One thing you can say about them is they know sugar,'' 
     said Tom Hammer of the Sweetener Users Association.
       Hammer's group, which represents candy manufacturers and 
     other industrial sugar users, has lined up against the 
     Fanjuls--and lost--in political battles over the federal 
     sugar program, which provides huge benefits to growers such 
     as Flo-Sun.
       Still, Hammer voices a grudging respect for the family and 
     its sugar success.
       ``They are formidable opponents in terms of knowing what is 
     the best system for them and being willing to stand up for 
     it,'' he said. ``That is the political system at work.''


                          from cuba to florida

       The Fanjuls' roots in sugar date to pre-revolutionary Cuba, 
     where their family had dominated the industry since the 19th 
     century.
       But the family fled Cuba when Fidel Castro came to power, 
     buying 4,000 acres in Florida in 1960 and beginning Flo-Sun.
       The company's success since then has been phenomenal, 
     ballooning to 180,000 acres of cane fields and accounting for 
     40 percent of the sugar grown in Florida. The worth of the 
     private sugar empire has been estimated at $500 million, not 
     including extensive outside holdings by the family elsewhere 
     in the United States and in the Dominican Republic.
       But the success of Flo-Sun, and of the Fanjul brothers who 
     now run it, is attributable as much to acknowledge of the 
     sugar industry as it is to a knack for American-style 
     politics.
       The Fanjuls--Alfonso, 59, Jose, 53, and other family 
     members--have been active at all levels of government when 
     their interests are at stake, and they've always been willing 
     to back up their positions with their checkbooks.
       They helped fight off a proposed Florida measure last year 
     that would have assessed a penny-a-pound tax on raw sugar to 
     fund Everglades restoration. Flo-Sun and other Florida sugar 
     growers combined on a $22.7 million campaign aimed at 
     defeating the plan, compared to $13 million spent by Florida 
     environmentalists and other proponents of it.
       Neither brother is a U.S. citizen, but Alfonso co-chaired 
     President Clinton's 1992 Florida campaign and Jose served on 
     the campaign finance committee of 1996 GOP contender Bob 
     Dole. The two Fanjuls recently applied for U.S. citizenship.
       Flo-Sun and its subsidiaries donated $224,500 to the 
     national Democratic Party from 1995-1996 and $319,000 to the 
     Republicans. The amounts don't include contributions to 
     individual candidates.
       ``The Fanjul brothers play interesting, both-sides-of-the-
     street politics here in Washington,'' said Burton Eller, who 
     has faced off against Flo-Sun as chairman of the Coalition 
     for Sugar Reform, a group bent on dismantling the federal 
     program that benefits sugar growers such as Flo-Sun.
       Some observers say the goal of the brothers' two-pronged 
     politicking has been to preserve the status quo--which 
     includes a lucrative federal system of price supports and 
     import quotas that benefit domestic sugar growers.
       Others dismiss the criticism as the whining of losers.
       ``Their efforts to be involved in government are 
     commendable,'' said U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida 
     Republican who represents the Fanjuls' south Florida home 
     base.
       ``When has that become a crime?'' asked Foley, who 
     collected $4,000 in contributions from the brothers and Flo-
     Sun last year. ``They live here. They pay taxes. They employ 
     people, and they live within the boundaries of the system.''
       Flo-Sun received up to $64 million in benefits in one year 
     alone under the federal sugar program, according to an 
     estimate by the government's General Accounting Office.
       The Fanjuls and other sugar growers won a heated political 
     battle last year to maintain the program. The federal price 
     supports and import quotas that benefit sugar growers are 
     preserved in the 1996 federal Farm Bill, which outlines farm 
     policy through 2002, even though subsidies for many other 
     farm products are being phased out.


                           Expensive victory

       But the win in the Farm Bill fight cost the Fanjuls more 
     than money. It came at a time of increased scrutiny on 
     campaign finance and when consumer advocacy groups were 
     blasting the federal sugar program as nothing more than a 
     handout to big sugar growers.
       The timing brought unwanted focus on the Fanjuls--known for 
     being intensely private--and resulted in them being dubbed 
     ``poster boys for corporate welfare,'' among other things, in 
     unflattering profiles in several national publications.
       Photographs of their sports cars and mansions and 
     descriptions of a jet-setting lifestyle fueled the fire.
       Flo-Sun spokesman Jorge Dominicis said the Fanjuls couldn't 
     comment this week because of a mandated Securities and 
     Exchange Commission ``quite time'' leading up to all mergers 
     involving public companies, such as Savannah Foods. 
     Representatives of Savannah Foods have declined comment for 
     the same reason.
       But Foley said much of the focus on the Fanjuls' lifestyle 
     and political activity has been unfair.
       ``Some of it is born out of, I don't want to say prejudice, 
     but they are Cubans and they've come here and they've been 
     very successful,'' he said.
       ``They came from a land where all their property was taken 
     (by Castro), and they've

[[Page 15556]]

     emerged very successful. It's been called corporate welfare, 
     but they play on the same playing field as everyone else.''
       Luther Markwart, chairman of the U.S. Sugar Beet Growers 
     Association, an ally of cane growers such as Flo-Sun, also 
     said the criticism of the Fanjuls is baseless.
       ``They're very smart businessmen and their family has been 
     in sugar for six generations,''. Markwart said. ``The people 
     that are calling them the names, are the big industrial users 
     (of sugar) and some of the environmentalists down there'' in 
     Florida.
       None of the public criticisms of the Fanjuls has questioned 
     their business acumen.
       Still, Savananah Foods stock has plummeted since the 
     announcement several weeks ago of the proposed merger with a 
     Flo-Sun subsidiary. Stock in Savannah Foods has dropped from 
     nearly $19 a share prior to the announcement to $14.12 a 
     share now.
       The slide is being attributed largely to a sense that 
     Savannah Foods isn't reaping full value for its assets in the 
     proposed merger.
       Under the terms of the deal, the Fanjuls and Flo-Sun will 
     control 83 percent of shareholder voting strength in the 
     merged company despite owning only 58 percent of the shares.
       ``It's basically a question of a public company that is 
     going to be in the hands of private people, for the most 
     part,'' said Victor Zabavsky, an analyst with Value Line 
     Publishing in New York who follows Savannah Foods.
       But if the merger goes through, Foley said average 
     Savannahians who look to Savannah Foods as a major employer 
     and a good corporate citizen have nothing to fear.
       ``A lot of the media spotlight on (the Fanjuls) has been 
     negative,'' Foley said. ``But that's not the Fanjuls--they 
     want to be good corporate citizens. They're certainly going 
     to be very concerned with the community and the employment 
     base of Savannah Foods.
       ``Its not just political coffers they pour money into,'' he 
     said. ``They help virtually every charity that asks. They are 
     very philanthropic.''


                              Top stories

     Alfonso Fanjul, 59
       A native of Cuba who received a bachelor's in business 
     administration from Fordham University in New York City.
       Chairman and chief executive officer of Flo-Sun. He also 
     will serve in the same capacity in a new company formed 
     through the merger of Flo-Sun subsidiary Florida Crystals and 
     Savannah Foods and Industries.
       A prominent Democrat who co-chaired President Clinton's 
     1992 Florida campaign.
       Among other endeavors, he is a trustee of the University of 
     Miami, the Intracoastal Health Foundation and the Good 
     Samaritan/St. Mary's Hospital.
     Jose ``Pepe'' Fanjul, 53
       A native of Cuba who received a bachelor's in economics 
     from Villanova University and a master's in business 
     administration from New York University.
       President and chief operating officer of Flo-Sun. He'll 
     serve in the same capacity in a new company formed through 
     the merger of Flo-Sun subsidiary Florida Crystals and 
     Savannah Foods and Industries.
       A prominent Republican who served on the campaign finance 
     committee of 1996 GOP presidential contender Bob Dole. He 
     also is vice chairman the national Republican Party's finance 
     committee.
       Among other endeavors, he is a trustee of the intracoastal 
     Health Foundation, the Good Samaritan/St. Mary's Hospital and 
     the American Friends of the Game Conservancy. He also is a 
     director of the Knights of Malta, the Americas Society, the 
     Spanish Institute and the New Hope Foundation.
     Fanjuls' news clippings
       Sugar growers such as Flo-Sun successfully defended their 
     lucrative system of federal price supports and import quotas 
     in a heated political battle over the 1996 Farm Bill. But 
     last year's Farm Bill fight, along with renewed calls for 
     campaign finance reform, have focused national media 
     attention on Flo-Sun's Fanjul family and its practice of 
     lavish political contributions. Here is a breakdown of what 
     some publications and organizations have had to say about 
     Flo-Sun and the Fanjuls.
       Center of Responsive Politics: ``With their wealth 
     conservatively estimated at several hundred million dollars, 
     the Fanjuls can afford to spread around lots of political 
     money. And they do. . . . The Florida sugar cane industry's 
     campaign contributions may have helped preserve the federal 
     price-support system for sugar.''
       George magazine: ``Though Cuban citizens, the Fanjul 
     brothers had proved quick students of American-style wheeling 
     and dealing and before long were living much as they had in 
     their pre-Castro homeland--only protected by even more 
     wealth, power and Teflon.''
       Mother Jones magazine: ``The Fanjuls' total (political) 
     giving has been consistently underreported because they give 
     through an array of family members, companies, executives and 
     PACs. During the 1995-96 election cycle, members of the 
     Fanjul family contributed $774,500 to federal campaigns. . . 
     . It's an excellent investment. In return, a grateful 
     Congress maintains a sugar price support program worth 
     approximately $65 million annually to the Fanjuls.''
     U.S. Sugar Corp.
       U.S. Sugar Corp., another large Florida sugar grower, also 
     is a major beneficiary of the federal sugar program. U.S. 
     Sugar donated a combined $230,000 to the national Democratic 
     and Republican parties in 1995-96, not including 
     contributions to individual candidates.
       National Enquirer: ``It's the sweetest deal on earth. Every 
     time you buy a pound of sugar grown by the Fanjuls and other 
     U.S. sugar growers, you pay more than a nickel extra--and the 
     money goes right into their pockets.''
       New York Times: ``The support program (for sugar) has kept 
     some marginal producers in business while producing big 
     profits for more efficient companies. The most conspicuous 
     example of the latter is Flo-Sun, a huge operation north of 
     the Everglades controlled by two brothers, Alfonso and Jose 
     Fanjul . . . Given their obvious interest in keeping the 
     subsidy program alive, the Fanjuls are lavish contributors to 
     politicians in both parties--giving as much as $3 million 
     since 1979, by one estimate.''

  Mr. McCAIN. There was an Associated Press article of May 12 entitled 
``Sugar Growers Get Bailout: Purchase of Surplus Will Cost Taxpayers 
About $60 Million.'' I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Sugar Growers Get Bailout--Purchase of Surplus Will Cost Taxpayers 
                           About $60 Million

                          (By Philip Brasher)

       Washington, May 12--The government plans to buy and store 
     150,000 tons of surplus sugar to bail out farmers who have 
     produced so much of the stuff that prices have dropped 25 
     percent over the past year.
       The Agriculture Department put off the decision about what 
     to do with the sugar, which will cost taxpayers about $60 
     million. The department has considered donating it overseas 
     or else selling it at a steep discount for refining into 
     ethanol, a fuel additive normally made from corn.
       Growers have been threatening to forfeit to the government 
     as much as $550 million worth of sugar pledged as collateral 
     on federal marketing loans.


                       fend off loan forfeitures

       ``We are acting to help address dramatically low sugar 
     prices,'' Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said in 
     announcing the planned purchase. ``By buying U.S. sugar now, 
     we expect to save as much as $6 million in administrative 
     costs that the government might otherwise incur from expected 
     loan forfeitures later this summer.''
       A coalition of candy- and food-makers, consumer advocates 
     and environmental groups that opposes the sugar program had 
     urged the administration to let prices fall.
       ``Obviously, the administration has no plan for disposing 
     of the sugar,'' Jeff Nedelman, a spokesman for the group, 
     said today.
       ``They cannot dump it overseas for fear of igniting a trade 
     war. They cannot give it away for humanitarian aid, because 
     no country wants it, and they cannot refine it into ethanol 
     without fear of depressing corn prices. They have a crisis of 
     their own making and no good answer.''


                      further action a possibility

       The department did not rule out buying more sugar. Farmers 
     expect the Clinton administration ``will take further action, 
     as needed, to avoid forfeiture of sugar under loan to the 
     government,'' said Ray VanDriessche, president of the 
     American Sugarbeet Growers Association.
       Glickman's decision came on the eve of a visit by President 
     Clinton to Minnesota, a major sugar-growing state. Clinton 
     and Glickman were to visit a farm outside of the Minneapolis-
     St. Paul area today to appeal for Congress to approve 
     permanent trade relations with Cuba.
       The government guarantees farmers a minimum price for 
     domestic sugar through the loan program and quotas on 
     imports, but increases in domestic production are making it 
     difficult for USDA to control domestic prices.
       Growers who put their sugar up as collateral for a federal 
     loan have the right to forfeit the crop to the government if 
     prices fall below the guaranteed price.


                     surgery needed, not band-aids

       ``The sugar program does not need Band-Aids, it needs major 
     surgery,'' groups opposed to the program said in a letter 
     last month to Glickman.
       Glickman urged sugar growers to cut back on plantings by 
     idling land in the government's Conservation Reserve Program, 
     which pays farmers to take acreage out of production.
       ``We expect the sugar industry to rapidly develop 
     conservation and production options that can form the basis 
     of a sustainable sugar policy,'' Glickman said. ``Simply 
     relying on continued government purchases over

[[Page 15557]]

     the longer term is neither feasible nor realistic.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I quote:

       The Agriculture Department put off the decision about what 
     to do with the sugar, which will cost taxpayers about $60 
     million. The department has considered donating it overseas 
     or else selling it at a steep discount for refining into 
     ethanol, a fuel additive normally made from corn.
       ``The sugar program does not need Band-Aids, it needs major 
     surgery,'' groups opposed to the program said in a letter 
     last month to Glickman.
       Glickman urged sugar growers to cut back on plantings by 
     idling land in the government's Conservation Reserve Program, 
     which pays farmers to take acreage out of production.

  Obviously, that has not happened.
  I want to quote from an interesting one on June 16. Brian Williams of 
NBC Nightly News:

       Now time for ``The Fleecing of America.'' We have told you 
     here before about price supports for sugar producers in this 
     country, consumers paying what amounts to a hidden tax. Now, 
     according to a new report from the General Accounting Office, 
     what some already consider an outrageous fleecing of America 
     is about to get even worse. Here's NBC's Lisa Myers.
       Lisa Myers, reporter. For sugar beet farmers like Craig 
     Halfmann, what critics claim already is a sweet deal is 
     getting even sweeter. The government is using seventy million 
     of your tax dollars to buy a hundred fifty thousand tons of 
     sugar from farmers like Halfmann, enough sugar to lay five-
     pound bags end-to-end from New York to Los Angeles three 
     times. Why? To prop up sugar prices by reducing supply.
       Craig Halfmann, sugar beet farmer. We're in a crisis 
     situation and we're just asking the USA to help us out as 
     farmers.
       Myers. But critics say it's ridiculous and a windfall, 
     especially for big sugar producers, people who make millions. 
     But we'll get to them in a moment. You see, those seventy 
     million taxpayer dollars are in addition to the inflated 
     prices you already pay for sugar and don't even know it.
       Senator Richard Lugar. This is one of the most serious 
     outrages in the agriculture side consumers have never 
     understood, that they are paying a tax every time they get a 
     pound of sugar.
       Myers. And a candy bar, and cereal, even canned ham. It's 
     all because of the sugar program, and here's how it works. 
     The government uses import restrictions and price supports to 
     keep the sugar supply down and drive prices up. Today the 
     world price of sugar is about eight cents a pound. But US 
     growers get more than twice that much, about twenty cents. 
     And it all shows up right here, in what you pay. Experts 
     estimate the average family of four spends an extra twenty-
     six dollars a year for sugar because of the program. This 
     government report says that that works out to almost two 
     billion dollars straight from your pockets to sugar 
     producers. Supporters of the program insist it doesn't cost 
     that much, and say struggling farmers need even more help 
     this year, since bumper sugar crops drove down prices.
       Unidentified Man. All the government has done is to come in 
     and buy some of the surplus sugar. The government is holding 
     that sugar. They will sell it eventually, possibly even at a 
     profit.
       Myers. The Agriculture Department claims that buying excess 
     sugar now may save taxpayer money.
       Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist. Well, who benefits 
     from the purchase, I think, is the taxpayer. We think that 
     actually saves us some money and at the same time supports 
     prices a little bit now.
       Myers. Not so, say consumer advocates.
       Art Jaeger, Consumer Federation of America. The program 
     gives too little money to the farmers who need the help, too 
     much money to farmers who don't need the help.
       Myers. In fact, the biggest winners of all, critics say, 
     are the biggest sugar growers, like Pepe and Alfonso Fonhoul 
     (sp?) of Palm Beach, Florida. They've earned as much as 
     sixty-five million dollars a year from the program.
       Jaeger. Anytime you ask consumers to pay one-point-five to 
     two billion dollars a year more for food and the 
     beneficiaries are largely wealthy sugar cane growers in south 
     Florida, I think that's a fleecing of America.

  Mr. President, I am sure I will hear from the opponents of 
eliminating this subsidy that this is simply a program for small 
farmers, for small growers. The facts do not bear that out. I want to 
repeat, the majority of this sugar subsidy money goes to the large 
sugar farmers who also, coincidentally, happen to be major political 
donors in the American political process.
  I do not quite understand how my free-enterprise, free-market, less-
government-intervention, less-government-regulation colleagues will 
come here to the floor and argue that somehow this program is good for 
American citizens. It is not. Clearly, the facts state that it is a 
subsidy paid to a privileged few and it costs American taxpayers and 
American families a great deal of additional money.
  I know there are a lot of abuses. I know there are a lot of programs 
that favor a privileged few in American government. But this one is 
perhaps one of the most egregious, and we should stop it.
  I say to my friends who will oppose this amendment: No. 1, I will be 
glad to means-test this amendment; No. 2, I will be glad to have a 
phaseout of the sugar subsidies as well. If you agree to neither, you 
are basically saying let's let the Fanjul brothers continue to get $65 
million a year in subsidies and let's let the American family pay it.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator 
McCain, to offer an amendment that phases out the Federal sugar 
program.
  The current sugar program is one of the last vestiges of a 
centralized, subsidized U.S. farm sector which has mostly gone by the 
wayside. This is a special interest program that benefits a handful of 
sugar barons at the expense of every man, woman and child in America.
  Several years ago, the GAO estimated that consumers paid $1.4 billion 
more at the cash register because of the sugar price support. Today, 
because the world price for sugar is lower and the price paid in the 
U.S. is higher, the cost to consumers could be twice as high.
  And, and let's not forget that the sugar support system has already 
cost America thousands of refinery jobs. Why? Because the sugar program 
is such a bitter deal, refiners cannot get enough raw cane sugar to 
remain open. In Brooklyn and in Yonkers, we have lost one-third of our 
refinery jobs in the last decade. And it has already cost the 
Everglades hundreds of acres of pristine wilderness.
  Four years ago, when we came within five votes in the House of 
terminating the sugar program, the world market price for sugar was 
about ten cents and the U.S. price about 20 cents. Today the world 
price is less than a nickel and the U.S. price is almost a quarter. In 
other words, the gulf between the free market and the sugar program is 
getting wider.
  Under any reasonable and rational measure the sugar program should be 
repealed. If the issue is jobs, the environment or the consumer--then 
we have no choice but to repeal. Standing with me are liberal, moderate 
and conservative members of Congress. Standing with us are liberal, 
moderate and conservative public interest organizations. At all ends of 
the political spectrum the answer is the same--it's time to repeal the 
sugar program.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain 
amendment today. I certainly will not rise to the challenge the Senator 
from Arizona has placed. I never rise to the challenge of the editorial 
board of the New York Times or the tabloid test of NBC's ``Fleecing of 
America.'' I did that once with the ``Fleecing of America.'' I did 
because they were wrong. They had misused their facts, as they are 
misusing them now, and the Senator from Arizona has brought in those 
facts.
  The reality is, I stand on the floor today to defend about 1,000 
farmers in my State of Idaho, and I think you will hear from others 
today who defend American agriculture and its productive power and its 
ability to sustain itself within a world market and our willingness to 
put up reasonable safeguards to assure that sustainability at the local 
level. In my case, in Idaho, with nearly 1,000 sugar beet farmers, it 
is necessary and appropriate. I stand, not to apologize whatsoever, but 
to strongly support what I think is a necessary and appropriate 
program.
  As with other commodities, those of us from agricultural States know 
that many in agriculture today are in crisis. They are at or below 
break even by a substantial amount. There is no difference between the 
potato farmer of

[[Page 15558]]

Idaho or the sugar beet farmer of Idaho or the corn farmer of Iowa 
today.
  In the case of sugar, prices this year compared to last summer are 
down by about 26 percent, and as a result of that, the Government has 
responded aggressively and appropriately to the crisis in rural 
America, making approximately $70 billion of total expenditures since 
1966 to America's agricultural producers.
  I am not going to apologize for that, and here is why: Banks are not 
going under; farms are not going under; America's food supply on the 
shelf is more abundant, safer, and of a higher quality than ever, at a 
lower price. The American consumer today spends less of his or her 
consumer dollar for American food, including sugar, than any other 
consumer in the world.
  Should we apologize for that? I think not. What we have tried to do--
and I think we have been reasonably successful--is balance out a 
domestic program with foreign competition while consistently working to 
open up foreign markets and clearly to liberalize the whole of the 
agricultural programs of this country.
  USDA recently did purchase sugar. The Senator from Arizona has spoken 
to that. The reason they did was to try to stabilize the market and 
stabilize the price. There is no question that thousands of jobs in 
rural America depend on that action. I defended that action and I do 
now with no apology.
  Sugar policy has run at largely no cost to the U.S. Government since 
1985. I say that because what the Senator from Arizona failed to talk 
about was the amount of money directly contributed by the industry 
itself. In fact, it has been a revenue raiser. Since 1991, $279 million 
have been placed in the Treasury by a special marketing tax paid 
directly by the sugar producers. Did the Senator from Arizona mention 
that? Oops, I guess the Wall Street Journal did not mention it, nor did 
the New York Times mention it, nor did the ``Fleecing of America'' 
mention it. Of course, if they did not mention it, it ``ain't'' worth 
mentioning.
  The probable net cost of the announced purchase and removal of sugar 
has been more than covered by the revenues of the sugar policy. As I 
helped other Members of this Senate design that policy, that is exactly 
what we tried to do: to balance it out so the industry itself was self-
financing.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not at this time. Let me finish my statement.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator mentioned a very important marketing 
assessment, which had been taken out in last year's omnibus bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Since 1991, the marketing assessment has raised $279 
million. That was my quote. That is a fact the Senator cannot dispute. 
This 132,000-ton purchase is a step toward preventing the forfeiture of 
a much larger amount of sugar. USDA has estimated that 600,000 tons 
could be forfeited at a much higher cost to the Government--the Senator 
from Arizona is correct--based on current programs and current 
forfeitures. Pulling that sugar from the market now costs substantially 
less. The purchase saves the Government money and promotes the stopping 
of this kind of effort based on forfeiture, and that does save the 
American taxpayer money.
  The purchase would not have been necessary and there would be no 
threat of forfeiture if sugar producers were not required, under the 
WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement, to import about 15 
percent of our consumption. I happen to have voted against the North 
American Free Trade Agreement because I felt this was a loophole that 
would potentially cost the producers of the State of Idaho their crops 
and maybe their farms. Now, of course, reality begins to bear itself 
out.
  Further compounding the problem has been extensive import quota 
circumvention by a term that is now well known by those of us who are 
interested in agriculture. It is known as stuffed molasses. Low prices 
for other crops driving producers to beet and cane sugar production and 
extremely favorable weather conditions for the last 2 years have all 
contributed to the oversupply of sugar and the need for Government 
intervention.
  Stuffed molasses, as my colleagues know, is a way of circumventing 
the law by loading up molasses with sugar, moving it through import 
into this country, then pulling it in and refining the sugar out of it. 
It is kind of like covering up, violating the law, if you will, in a 
legal way. It certainly violates the spirit of the trade agreement.
  Allowing sugar prices to continue to fall will put more sugar farmers 
out of business, but it will not help consumers one bit. There is a 
general assumption on the part of those who oppose the sugar program 
that once you drop the price of sugar to the world price, all of a 
sudden candy bars get cheaper, soda pop gets cheaper, confectionery 
foods get cheaper, and we know that is not the fact. It has never been 
the fact. We might transfer a little profitability from the sugar 
farmer to the candy maker or to the soft drink producer, or to those 
who generally supply confectionery goods to the consumers of this 
country.
  Does it translate through to the farmer? No, it does not, and it 
never has.
  While the price food manufacturers and makers of candy--cereal, ice 
cream, cookies, and cakes--pay for sugar--they will always pay that 
amount. That is the character of the way the industry works. They 
simply either make a little more or make a little less, based on the 
margins in which they buy.
  The truth of the matter is that in the U.S., the sugar program has 
saved the consumer money by stabilizing the price across the board and, 
therefore, consistency. I remember long before I served in the Senate, 
without this sugar program, there were dramatic fluctuations in the 
marketplace. People were going in and out of business. Confectionery 
producers and soft drink suppliers were arguing at one point that sugar 
was so dramatically high that they had to raise their prices, and then 
sugar fell dramatically, but those prices did not come down. U.S. 
consumers pay about 20 percent less for sugar than does a consumer in 
other developed countries of the world.
  It is strange that I could use that figure--and it is a figure of 
fact, well established in the marketplace. Why don't other developed 
countries' consumers pay what we do? They buy on the world market. They 
buy, as the Senator from Arizona suggests, at a much cheaper price. The 
reason is the stability we have offered and, therefore, the averages 
that are very important to look at when you are looking at an overall 
price of the issue.
  Do I support the program? Yes, I do. Am I apologetic for it? No, I am 
not. The reason is very simple. Over the years, we have worked to craft 
a program that balances itself out and, in large part, has paid for 
itself. As we work to create a more open market and phase these kinds 
of programs out, I will support those efforts, too.
   It is very important for the whole of this country that I think we 
create that kind of stability. I hope we can do so.
  At the appropriate time, I, or the chairman of the subcommittee, will 
move to table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona for the simple 
reason that we think it would destabilize the markets of this country. 
It certainly would have a dramatic impact on my State and the 1,000-
plus farmers who make up the sugar portion of Idaho's agriculture 
production.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise, as well, in defense of this 
program. I rise in defense because I represent a State that is one of 
the most agricultural States in the Nation. The fact is, this program 
has helped stabilize an otherwise disastrous situation.
  This chart shows what has happened to sugar prices since the most 
recent farm bill. This is what has happened to refined beet sugar 
prices. On this chart it looks like a cliff because it is. Prices have 
collapsed. If we did not have something to counter the cycle, we

[[Page 15559]]

would see mass bankruptcy in rural America. That is a fact.
  The Senator from Arizona comes out and he reads clippings from 
various news articles. Unfortunately, those people know virtually 
nothing about what they are writing about. They say, over and over, 
that the world price of sugar is 8 cents a pound. Absolute nonsense. 
The world price of sugar is not 8 cents a pound. The vast majority of 
sugar in the world moves under long-term contract at much higher prices 
than the 8 cents a pound. About 18 cents a pound--that is what most 
sugar in the world sells for. What the Senator from Arizona is talking 
about is what is reported in the popular press--repeatedly--which is 
flat wrong.
  The price they are talking about is not the world price; the price 
they are talking about is the world dump price for sugar. It is what 
sugar sells for that is not under contract that is hard to sell. That 
is a dump price. It is far below the cost of production. It does not 
represent what sugar sells for in the world. It is an absolute fiction.
  Every time we have ended the program, what has happened to prices? 
Let's ask that question. Because the suggestion from the Senator from 
Arizona is, if you would end this program--you phase it out--prices to 
consumers would go down.
  Let's have a reality check.
  What has happened in the times we have ended the program? Did prices 
go down or did prices go up? You know what happened? Prices 
skyrocketed. That is what happened when the program ended. The fact is, 
this is a program that stabilizes prices. And that is critical to the 
survival of thousands of family farmers.
  The Senator from Arizona talks about one large interest as though 
that represents the totality of producers. Let me say to the Senator 
from Arizona, and to those who write these articles that attack the 
program and talk about one small group with large economic resources, 
what they are not doing is telling the whole story and telling the 
American people that literally thousands and thousands of family 
farmers are dependent on the stabilization this program provides. That 
is a fact.
  Come to my State. Go farm to farm. Meet these families. They are not 
wealthy people. They are people trying to make it in an environment in 
which the prices of the products that they make have plunged. Without 
this program to stabilize prices, there would be financial ruination 
all across the heartland of America. Is that what the Senator from 
Arizona advocates? Is that what he wants to have happen? Because 
assuredly that would be the case.
  One of the things that gets missed in this debate is this notion that 
somehow the United States is an island unto itself and that we do not 
have to worry about what the rest of the world is doing. If one would 
pay a little attention to what the rest of the world is doing, what one 
would find is that the United States is giving support to its producers 
at a level much lower than our major competitors.
  This chart shows what our major competitors are doing in terms of 
support for their producers--$324 an acre. Here is the support we are 
giving our producers--$34 an acre. By the way, these are not Kent 
Conrad's numbers. These are numbers from the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development.
  Our major competitors are outgunning us 10-1. I would suggest the 
Senator from Arizona is recommending unilateral disarmament for our 
agricultural producers in what is, in effect, a trade war. He would 
never do it in a military confrontation--never. If the other side had 
50,000 tanks, and we had 10,000 tanks, would the Senator from Arizona 
be out here recommending we cut the number of our tanks in half? Would 
that be the first move? I do not think so.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator allow me to answer his question?
  Mr. CONRAD. After I complete my thought and presentation, I will be 
happy to.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is too bad the Senator will not yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. No. I will be happy to after I complete my statement, as 
I allowed the Senator to complete his. I ask for the same courtesy from 
the Senator from Arizona as I extended to him.
  We are outgunned 10-1. If our opposition had 50,000 tanks and we had 
10,000, would the Senator from Arizona advocate cutting our number of 
tanks in half? That is exactly what we did in the last farm bill. They 
were supporting their producers at $50 billion a year. We were 
providing on average of $10 billion of support. And we cut our support 
in half.
  I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, it is a frivolous 
statement. It has no connection to the estimated $1.5 billion. The 
Senator from North Dakota said that I have been quoting from newspaper 
articles, et cetera. The Senator from North Dakota usually relies on 
the GAO.
  I have heard him quote from the GAO quite often. What the GAO is 
saying is the sugar program cost domestic sweetener users about $1.5 
billion in 1996 and $1.9 billion in 1998.
  If a foreign government was subsidizing anything--as they are Airbus; 
and the United States with Boeing--of course, I would take my complaint 
to the World Trade Organization and we would see about the outcome. I 
would not build further protectionist barriers for a private 
manufacturer of any product whether they be tanks or not.
  The Senator from North Dakota recently espoused fervently that we 
means test the estate taxes, the so-called death taxes. There was great 
lamenting on the other side of the aisle about the fact that wealthy 
people would get off scot-free, and that we should not let them be 
completely absolved from estate taxes.
  Will the Senator from North Dakota agree to a means testing on the 
amount of money so that the Fanjul brothers will not get $65 million a 
year of Arizona taxpayers' and North Dakota taxpayers' dollars? At 
least you could agree to a means testing of this, rather than 42 
percent of all these subsidies going to 1 percent of the sugar growers 
in America.
  So my answer to the question from the Senator from North Dakota: No, 
I would never agree to what he is saying. I would agree, however, to 
take the proper measures to remove protectionism on both sides of the 
Atlantic and all over the world. That is why I am a supporter of free 
trade.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just say that the Senator from Arizona says he would 
not do something, but that is precisely what he is doing on the floor 
of the Senate--precisely what he is doing--engaging in unilateral 
disarmament on behalf of our producers, when they are already being 
outspent 10-1 by our major competitors, the Europeans.
  What the Senator from Arizona says is: Let's just abandon our folks. 
We are going to play by a different set of rules. We are going to be 
purists on this side of the Atlantic. On the other side of the 
Atlantic, they get to take these markets the old-fashioned way. They 
get to go out and buy them. The result will be exactly what is 
happening, I say to the Senator from Arizona, whom I respect and 
admire.
  I disagree firmly with him on this point. I respect and admire the 
Senator from Arizona; I make that clear. We have a spirited debate and 
discussion going here, and that is in the best tradition of the Senate. 
This has no personal feeling attached to it.
  I want the Senator from Arizona to know, I think this is precisely 
wrong. The fundamental reason it is wrong is because this is not the 
way world agriculture is working. What is happening in world 
agriculture today is our major competitors are going out and buying 
these markets. If we don't give some assistance to our producers, what 
will happen is the other side will take market share, as they are. The 
USDA now projects that this year for the first year the Europeans are 
going to surpass us in world market share. Why? Because they are going 
out in a very concentrated, calculated way and buying market after 
market from us. If we are going to throw in the sugar market, as we 
have thrown in the wheat

[[Page 15560]]

market, as we have thrown in the barley market, pretty soon we will 
find an America that is second rate with respect to agriculture 
production. That would be a tragedy. It would be a mistake.
  The Senator references the GAO report. GAO is not perfect. If we look 
at this report and study it objectively, USDA put a team together and 
looked at this report. They concluded the validity of the results are 
suspect and should not be quoted authoritatively. Here is a sampling of 
some of the words USDA career analysts used in describing the GAO 
report: naive, arbitrary, in error, inconsistent, inadequate, a 
puzzlement, inflammatory and unprofessional, not well documented, 
incomplete, unrealistic. In a nutshell, the instant experts at GAO 
compared the U.S. price--the same thing the Senator from Arizona has 
done, the 8 cents he quotes--to a world dump market price that is a 
fraction of the cost of producing sugar and assumed that if grocery 
chains and food manufacturers could have access to that dump market 
sugar, they would pass 100 percent of their savings along to consumers.
  I have seen this over and over and over. It is an easy mistake to 
understand because people are writing about this industry who know 
nothing about it. They say over and over, the world price of sugar is 8 
cents. That is absolute nonsense. It is not true. It is not accurate. 
That is the dump price for world sugar. It would be the same as talking 
about the world steel price and failing to look at all of the steel 
that sells to the automobile industry around the world under contract, 
instead to look at the dump market where just a fraction of world steel 
and world sugar sells.
  It is economic know-nothingism, frankly, to make that reference. It 
is not reality.
  We have very difficult issues to deal with in world agriculture. In 
our country, the No. 1 issue is right here. Are we going to let our 
producers get swamped by a flood of European money, by tough 
competitors who have made a determination that what they want to do is 
dominate world agriculture and they are going to do it the old-
fashioned way. They are going to go out and buy these markets from us. 
That is what they are doing--$324 an acre of support on average versus 
our $34. If we want to continue to engage in unilateral disarmament and 
let American agriculture go right down the tubes, this is a good place 
to start, right here, today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk on this issue. It is an 
important issue to this country; it is an important issue to my State.
  I suspect much of what I state may have perhaps already been said. 
Nevertheless, I think it is important that we take a continuing look at 
the facts of the issue. We have heard a lot of emotional discussion 
with respect to it. The fact is, we have been through this before. 
About every year we seem to go through the same discussion.
  It does impact many people. It is not something where just a few rich 
people are involved. It provides 420,000 jobs in 40 States. Many 
agriculture communities are dependent on sugar production, as are some 
in my State. Frankly, it is one of the few products that is processed 
on to retail use. It comes out of the State ready to put on the grocery 
store shelf. Seldom does that happen in my State.
  It provides a $26 billion annual economic activity and is a very high 
quality product, one that is changing. We talked about the candy and so 
on. Most of that comes from corn sweeteners. Nevertheless, it is very 
important. It is a very efficient industry; by world standards, we have 
the 18th lowest cost of production out of 96 producing countries, 
despite the fact that we have high-cost environmental standards and 
those kinds of costs.
  As the Senator from North Dakota made quite clear, we keep talking 
about the ``world'' price. It isn't the world price. It is the dump 
price. Almost all the countries are subsidized. After they raise more 
than the subsidy applies to, it is dumped on the market. That needs to 
be understood.
  We need to understand that consumers have benefited from this 
program. Retail sugar prices are virtually unchanged since 1990 and are 
20 percent below the developed country average. It is about the most 
affordable in the entire world, as a matter of fact.
  We have talked about taxpayer benefits. Until this year, the sugar 
program has been a zero cost program for 15 years, since 1985. It 
generated $279 million in revenue since 1991 that was paid by the 
industry into the Government. It is WTO, NAFTA compliant. Prices have 
been very low for the producers, very low in the industry.
  Unfortunately, there has not been a passthrough. What we find is the 
grocery stores have not lowered their price. The price of sweetened 
products is up 7 to 9 percent. At the same time, the grower price has 
been down approximately 20 percent. We find a great deal of activity 
there.
  We have heard several times about the GAO report. The Senator talked 
about that. Certainly, the findings of USDA were such that they 
confused the world market with the dump price, as was pointed out. They 
also assumed that the lower costs were being passed on 100 percent 
through the retail market. That is not the case. Even though I am a 
great supporter of GAO, that study was not one that has been 
particularly useful.
  The wholesale price for refined sugar has been down, is down, 25.9 
percent in the last 3\1/2\ years. At the same time, the price for 
refined retail sugar is about the same. Ice cream is up. Candy is up. 
Cookies are up. Cereal is up. We haven't seen that pass through to the 
product.
  I will not continue to go through this. I think we have covered many 
of the facts. This is a very important industry in my State. Our sugar 
beet production is one of the most efficient in the world. We have 
three refineries. It is very important to us. We have been through this 
whole discussion before. I think we agreed, then, this is an important 
matter to the country, to agriculture. I rise in opposition to the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues who have 
engaged in the debate so far.
  It is summertime in Washington so I guess that means it is sugar 
amendment time. The Senate essentially voted on this once before. It 
seems we do it every July and August, during the summer months. The 
exact same amendment was voted on last August 4. The Senate rejected 
the amendment by a vote of 66-33, a 2-to-1 margin. I think the reason 
it was rejected by such a large margin is that Members are finally 
beginning to understand the sugar program and what it really involves 
and why it has worked for so many years as a benefit both to producers 
and also to the consumers of sugar and sugar products. It is not a 
perfect program, but it is one that has improved over the years. I will 
make a couple of comments about it.
  Before that, I want to mention the fact that not too far back, this 
Congress was really involved in the crisis involving the increase in 
gasoline prices. We talked about gasoline prices going up 25 cents a 
gallon, 30 cents a gallon, 50 cents a gallon, and everybody being in an 
uproar about it.
  The sugar program has been at a loan rate of 18 cents since 1985. It 
hasn't gone up one-half cent since 1985. What I want to do is take a 
moment to try to explain, as briefly as I can, how the program works. 
We have had talk on the floor this afternoon about these ``huge'' 
subsidies being given to some wealthy family, I heard, somewhere in 
Florida. I have almost 700 sugar cane farms in Louisiana and the 
growers would be very surprised to learn there is a big subsidy program 
out there, because the sugar program is not a direct subsidy from the 
taxpayer by any stretch of the imagination.
  What sugar farmers get is a loan, as other commodities also get, such 
as rice, cotton, and other farm products. The loan is 18 cents per 
pound for sugar. It is a non-recourse loan. What that means, simply, to 
people not in the agriculture business, is it gives

[[Page 15561]]

farmers the option of putting their crop under loan at harvest time. 
They have the option to either pay back the loan in dollars or, if the 
market price falls so low they cannot do that, they can forfeit their 
sugar to the Government as payment for the loan.
  The interesting thing is that, since 1985, there has not been one 
single forfeiture under the loan program. Not one. Farmers have put 
their crop under loan and they have paid back the loan when the loan 
was due to the Federal Government. That is how the program works. There 
is no direct subsidy to make up the difference in a price, where 
taxpayers have to dip into their pockets to give to a sugar farmer. It 
is a non-recourse loan, which means they can either pay it back in 
dollars or forfeit the amount of sugar that they have put under loan.
  Some would say, well, the sugar program protects domestic sugar by 
preventing sugar imports from coming into this country. That is not 
true. In fact, the sugar we are importing varies between 15 and 20 
percent. It comes from 40 countries around the world. It is GATT legal. 
It comes into this country, under the program, from 40 different 
countries around the world.
  Here is the thing that I think is really interesting, because I guess 
in addition to saying it is a huge subsidy program--which it is not; it 
is simply a loan program--is that somehow consumers are being harmed by 
this program. This chart, I think, is consistent with what Senator 
Conrad from North Dakota was pointing out. We have a bar chart; I think 
he had a graph. It is essentially the same thing. This is data from the 
Department of Agriculture. It is not from the sugar industry; it is 
from the USDA. It indicates that it has been 3\1/2\ years since the 
start of the 1996 farm program when we put the new and improved program 
into effect.
  The chart from USDA indicates that the prices for producers have 
fallen, and the consumer prices for sugar and sweetened products have 
risen. This shows sugarcane farmers in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, 
Hawaii, which produce the bulk of the sugarcane used for sugar. Since 
1996, when we put the program into place, the price of sugarcane to the 
producer, to the farmer, has fallen 14.6 percent. These are USDA 
numbers. The prices for wholesale refined sugar, beet sugar, USDA tells 
us, have fallen 31.9 percent. These are USDA numbers. They show prices 
falling to the producers, the farmers of cane sugar, and prices falling 
to the producers of sugar from sugar beets.
  You would think that if the price to the farmer is falling by 31.9 
percent, in one case, and 14.6 percent for sugarcane farmers, my 
goodness, that must be great for consumers, right? Everything that uses 
sugar should have a corresponding fall in its price, right? Wrong.
  Look at what happened to the price of sugar on the shelf. The price 
of sugar on the shelf has risen a very small amount, while the price 
for the people producing sugar cane and sugar beets has been 
drastically falling. But the price of sugar on the shelf has been on 
the increase when you would expect that it would be going down. Look at 
what happened. Here is where the complainers were. How many Members of 
Congress have gotten letters from people saying gas prices are too 
high? Probably quite a few of us. ``Do something, Senator. Gas prices 
are too high.'' How many people have gotten a letter from a housewife, 
or somebody running a home, saying, ``You know, my biggest problem is 
that I went to buy 5 pounds of sugar and it is so high I have to choose 
between clothes and shoes and sugar.'' Nobody is writing about that and 
complaining about the price for 5 pounds of sugar going through the 
roof. Do you know why? Because it is not.
  Here is what has been happening. The people who use it--the large 
manufacturers who make candy--and I can name them, but I will spare 
them the embarrassment--have had their prices go up 6.4 percent, while 
a main ingredient, sugar, has been plummeting over here. Not the price 
of candy. A main ingredient's price has been going down, but the price 
of their product has been going up.
  Cookies and cakes are big users of sugar. The most important thing in 
these products is probably sugar. Their prices have gone up 6.6 
percent, according to the USDA, while the price of sugar, a main 
ingredient, has plummeted. Cereal? Big users. There are a lot of sugar-
coated flakes for kids. Cereal prices have gone up 8.3 percent. The 
price of sugar to the farmer has plummeted.
  The last one is ice cream. I love it. I would buy it no matter what 
it costs. It has gone up 9.8 percent. There is a lot of sugar in ice 
cream. What they are paying for the sugar is a lot lower than it used 
to be. Boy, their product price doesn't reflect that. If there are 
problems here, they are candy, cookies, cereal, and ice cream. It used 
to be the soft drink industry, but they got out and quit using sugar. 
Today the price of their product is more than it was when they were 
using sugar. And then look at the cans of artificially sweetened soft 
drink products and the cans of the naturally sweetened soft drinks; the 
price of an artificially sweetened soft drink is no less than the price 
of the one that is using the natural sweetener. Try to explain that 
when they say the real problem is sugar prices.
  These are USDA figures, not mine and not sugar producers. Their 
prices have plummeted under the program. There is no direct Government 
subsidy. It is a loan. Sugar farmers have never forfeited one single 
loan since 1985. They have paid it back, and paid it back in dollars, 
and it has been the same loan rate since 1985. It has been 18 cents. 
That program, designed to help everybody, has seemingly not helped the 
farmer very much. But it is the only thing we have. Like every other 
product and commodity that we try to help in a balanced fashion, it has 
done that.
  I will conclude by saying that this is the same vote we had last 
August. The Senate spoke very clearly then, 66-33. I hope that we will 
do the same thing today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I guess I have been around this old 
business of agriculture about as long as anybody. We have seen high 
commodity prices and we have seen low commodity prices. Years ago, when 
we would get a high surplus of any type of commodity, the price went 
down and so did the price in the grocery store. We had to eat our way 
out of this thing, so to speak. It happened in livestock, pork and beef 
and chicken products. But that is not the case anymore.
  I was interested in his chart showing how, even though the price of 
sugar has gone down, the prices of candy, cookies, other baked goods, 
cereal, and ice cream has continued to go up. I don't want anybody 
fiddling with my ice cream. I like it like it is. If it goes up a 
little bit, that is OK. But don't come back and say if all of the 
support is taken away from sugar, the prices will go down in the store. 
It doesn't work with this product. It was about a year and a half ago 
that live hogs hit an all-time low and got down to around 10 cents a 
pound. Yet, when I went to my grocery stores out here in Springfield, 
VA, and back in Billings, MT, guess what? Boned out, double-cut pork 
chops were still around $5 to $6 a pound.
  Folks, I don't know how sharp your pencil is. But that ``don't 
pencil.'' That just ``don't pencil.''
  We are looking at a program that has cost the taxpayer virtually 
nothing. Yet it sustains many small farmers. Sure, there are a couple 
of big ones down in Florida. But there are a couple of big ones in 
everything. For the most part, this is support for farmers in the Big 
Horn Basin of Wyoming and the Yellowstone Valley between Billings and 
Sidney. It keeps them in business.
  I ask the American people, when it comes to farm programs or 
insurance, do you insure your car? Yes. You do. Do you insure your 
house? Yes. You insure your house. Do you insure your life? Yes. We do 
that. I look upon this as just a little insurance policy. It doesn't 
cost us very much money, but it ensures that your grocery stores will 
be full of the most nutritious and safe food of any grocery store in 
the world

[[Page 15562]]

and priced less than the percentage of the disposable income of any 
other place in the world. That is a pretty good insurance policy. We 
don't have to garden. We don't have to plant, or seed, or weed, 
harvest, or process. We can continue to do what we want to do in our 
profession. It is guaranteed that you are going to have that supply in 
any amount and fixed in any way and processed in any way.
  We already talked about the numbers. But we are basically looking at 
people who have a great deal on the line. They risk a lot. They are 
subject to the elements. They have no control over that. They have no 
control over the retail end of the product--none whatsoever. If we are 
going to keep this very efficient food machine alive, this is the 
insurance policy that we all have. It serves this country very well.
  I suggest that you not support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Arizona. It is well intentioned. As the Senator from Louisiana 
said, it is indeed July.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my friend from North Dakota on the 
floor. Of course our entire relationship is characterized by respect. 
Obviously he makes a strong case for his point of view. I not only 
respect but I appreciate and enjoy the verbal exchanges we have from 
time to time. He is a worthy adversary. I will not take very long.
  It was alleged that marketing assessments are large amounts of money. 
That is true. I believe it is $272 million or something such as that. 
But I think it is appropriate to mention that those marketing 
assessments in last year's omnibus bill were done away with. The sugar 
producers do nothing to address the budget deficit. I think an argument 
can be made that this Senator from Arizona may not be the most expert 
on agricultural issues. I plead guilty to that. I believe there are 
other issues in which I am better informed.
  A cosponsor of this amendment is the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Senator Lugar. Senator Lugar is in support of this 
amendment. I am honored that the chairman of the committee is in 
support of this amendment. I think his viewpoint should also be taken 
into consideration, particularly with more gravity than mine.
  There was a study conducted by the Center for International 
Economics. It was prepared as part of the trade agenda and conference 
on the 1st and 2nd of October 1999 in Geneva. I will read the beginning 
of this study:

       If ever there was a case for multilateral trade 
     liberalisation, and if ever there was a liberalisation from 
     which the global economy stood to gain, it is sugar. The 
     world sugar market contains some of the largest and most 
     blatant forms of trade protection. Many of these have a 300 
     year history. The worst of the worst are in developed 
     countries. They greatly distort trade and prices. Although 
     the world economy, consumers and efficient sugar producers 
     stand to gain substantially from liberalisation, some 
     producers, especially those in developed countries, stand to 
     lose. And herein lies a political challenge--there are large 
     vested interests that are likely to oppose sugar trade 
     liberalisation. In the Uruguay Round these vested interests 
     won hands down. Should they win again, they are likely to 
     further undermine developed country credibility in the WTO 
     and the WTO itself. Ultimately countries unilaterally 
     liberalise trade. The best that multilateral forums can do is 
     to assist that process. The biggest gains in trade 
     liberalisation come form reducing the biggest distortions 
     first. Giving prominence to sugar and other highly protected 
     products in the WTO millennium round makes economic sense. 
     Such prominence is also needed to help counter the vested 
     interests opposed to reform.

  They go on to say:

       This taxation of consumers and protection of producers is 
     highest in Japan, Western Europe and the United States.

  We are the leading proponent of free and open trade. The United 
States has an enviable record, whether it be the North American Free 
Trade Agreement. Whether it be expansion of economic trade relations 
with China through Democrat and Republican administrations, we have 
been in pursuit of free trade. Clearly, we lose credibility when we 
stand as one of the highest protectionists for our sugar industry.
  I say again with respect to my friend from North Dakota and the 
opponents of this amendment that I will be glad to work with them at 
least to means test this subsidy. Why in the world should one family 
get $65 million in subsidies? That is remarkable when you think about 
it. Adding to that, they are harming the Everglades. Every objective 
study indicates that the runoff from pesticides and other pollutants in 
the Everglades is dramatically damaging the Everglades. Yes. The sugar 
companies are paying some money, but in comparison to the overall cost, 
the estimated cost of fixing the Everglades is minuscule.
  I am not without sympathy for the farmers in North Dakota. I am not 
without sympathy for the farmers in Montana, Louisiana, and Idaho. But 
when they are encouraged to grow a crop which they would not grow if it 
were not for the subsidies, and in addition in some parts of America 
they are doing damage to our environment, then it is time we said 
enough.
  Again, I strongly support a proposal to means test and to phase out 
these sugar subsidies. We phased out a large number of subsidies when 
we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. I would agree that the Freedom to 
Farm Act has had very mixed results. In fact, there are questions 
raised by many.
  We eliminated and phased out wool, butter, cheese, powdered milk, and 
other dairies. We capped cotton and reduced peanuts, wheat, and others. 
But we retain two quite remarkable products; that is, sugar and 
tobacco. I promise not to bore my colleagues with a tirade about 
tobacco. But the fact is that the sugar subsidy is one which needs to 
be eliminated. I think we all know that.
  It is my understanding that the Senator from North Dakota, Senator 
Dorgan, after his remarks, will make a motion to table. I am certainly 
in agreement with that, or if there are other speakers, I would be glad 
to join into a time agreement, whatever is agreeable, with the Senator 
from Mississippi and the Senator from Wisconsin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to oblige the Senator from 
Arizona and set up a unanimous consent agreement to limit time, if 
there are other Senators who want to speak.
  I see the Senator from North Dakota on his feet. I assume he wants to 
speak on the amendment. I know of no other Senators who wish to speak 
who have not already spoken.
  Senator Craig indicated an interest in making a motion to table the 
McCain amendment. We are about at that point where we are ready for a 
motion to table the amendment.
  I will yield the floor if anyone wants to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my friend for a 
unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. McCAIN. This allows the Commerce Committee to meet off the floor 
for the purposes of approving the nomination of Mr. Norman Mineta to be 
the Secretary of Commerce.
  Mr. COCHRAN. No objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous consent agreement--executive calendar

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask consent, notwithstanding any rule or other order, 
it be in order for the Commerce Committee to meet in executive session 
for the purpose only of reporting nominations to the Executive 
Calendar. Among those nominations is that of Mr. Norman Mineta, former 
Congressman and nominee to be Secretary of Commerce, immediately 
following the next rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. In the spirit of the unanimous consent agreement, let me 
try this: I ask unanimous consent the Senate vote on or in relation to 
the McCain amendment at 2 o'clock.

[[Page 15563]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to oppose the 
amendment offered by my colleague and friend from Arizona, Senator 
McCain. I want to talk about a number of things that have been 
discussed about sugar, the sugar program, in this amendment.
  First, let me talk about ``free trade.'' There is not free trade in 
sugar around the world. It is not the case that the price that is 
described as the world price for sugar represents a free trade price. 
It is a fact that most sugar that is bought and sold around the world 
is bought and sold on contracts between countries. The quantity of 
sugar that is produced above that is sold on the dump market for dump 
market prices, but most sugar is traded or sold between countries on 
contract. So the price that is quoted as the world price for sugar is 
not the world price for sugar at all. That is a myth. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, the issue of who is getting a subsidy; is someone getting a 
large subsidy? There aren't any subsidies. This is not a program that 
has a subsidy. This is not a program in which the taxpayer is taxed and 
money comes to the Federal Government and money is given to a producer. 
There are no payments to producers. There are no subsidies. That is the 
second point.
  There are forces that have wanted to abolish the sugar program for 
some long while. The sugar program is not a program that gives a 
payment to a producer. It does create a circumstance of balance between 
production and imports in order to achieve a domestic price that 
provides stability for consumers and stability for producers. Some 
don't like that. Who are they? Well, they call themselves the Coalition 
for Sugar Reform. Who or what is the Coalition for Sugar Reform? Anyone 
can guess that. The American Bakers Association, the National 
Confectioners Association, the Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers 
Association, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the Independent 
Bakers Association.
  Let's look at these groups. The price of sugar has dropped 30 percent 
since last summer, to a 22-year low. The price of sugar has dropped by 
a third. Anyone who listens to me should ask themselves, have I 
purchased a candy bar lately? If so, did I see a reduction in the cost 
of the candy bar? Did I buy a can of soda? If so, was it cheaper than 
it used to be? The answer, clearly, is no. Sugar prices have dropped by 
30 percent. Chocolate and candy prices are up by 6 percent. Cookies, 
cakes, and other bakery products are up by 7 to 8 percent. Cereal and 
ice cream prices are up by 9 percent. Buy just a bag of sugar at the 
store and see whether it costs 30 percent less.
  Let's figure out where sugar comes from. It comes from a family farm 
in the Red River Valley of North Dakota. This family raises sugar 
beets. They buy a tractor, they buy other equipment with which to plant 
the seeds; then they buy fuel, they buy fertilizer, they get up in the 
mornings and gas up the tractor and go break the ground. They do the 
things farmers do. They take all the risks. They do all the work. And 
then they hope. They hope something doesn't happen to the crop. They 
hope it doesn't get burned out, flooded out, or have disease. If all of 
those hopes are realized, maybe at the end of the year they get a 
crop--maybe.
  After risking all their money and working all year, if they get a 
crop, then maybe they get a crop that has a price above the cost of 
production. But maybe not.
  Some say: It doesn't matter who is producing these things; we really 
don't care--talking about the organizations, the Coalition for Sugar 
Reform--we don't care where it comes from; we just want to get the 
world price for sugar, the dump price for sugar.
  What is the result of that? The result means devastation of family 
farms in many parts of this country--those families who are out there 
trying to earn a living as best they can, whose fortune, whose future 
is based on events around the globe over which they have no control and 
whom these organizations would like to link to the world dump price for 
sugar. They can't make it. They wouldn't make it.
  We have to ask the question, Is it reasonable for us in this country 
to decide we want to do a couple of things at once? One, provide stable 
prices for sugar for the American consumer. We have done that. U.S. 
retail prices for sugar are virtually unchanged for more than a decade. 
How many prices exist on the grocery store shelf where we can say that 
price is largely unchanged for an entire decade? Not very many. Sugar, 
we can.
  Why is it we have price stability for consumers? It has not always 
been that way. We have seen times when the price of sugar has spiked 
up, up, way up. The sugar program has provided stability of price for 
the consumer. At the same time, it has tried to provide some basic 
stability of price for the producer that takes the risk of producing. 
Some don't like that. They say producers don't matter much here. They 
do matter. They are part of the economic backbone of this country. They 
are the salt of the Earth. The folks who are out there trying to make a 
living on America's family farmers--and yes, I say to those questions, 
yes, they are family farmers. If you doubt it, come with me and I will 
take you to a few. We will drive in the yard, see the equipment, talk 
to the family. These are family farmers producing sugar beets.
  On another point about how well they do, the cost of production for 
sugar in this country is well below the cost of production in the world 
average. In fact, we have the lowest cost of beet sugar producers in 
the world. Yet they couldn't compete against dumped sugar at dump sugar 
prices. Should they have to compete in a global economy against dump 
sugar prices? The answer is no, of course not.
  We ought to be willing to stand up for this country's producers. I am 
not at all embarrassed, and I will never be embarrassed, for standing 
up for the economic interests of America's producers, to say to them, 
you deserve an opportunity to have a fair return. That is what this 
program is all about. In my judgment, this amendment ought to be tabled 
by this Senate. I believe it will be tabled. I have a series of charts, 
but I think my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and Senator 
Breaux and Senator Craig and others have used the charts. They show 
prices. They show what has happened to our producers--a devastating 
price collapse.
  Let me make one other parenthetical point. It seems to me, if you are 
going to start dealing with farm issues, the last thing you would want 
to do is go to one part of the farm program that historically has 
worked pretty well. We have had some problems with it in recent months 
for a number of reasons. Historically, this program has been the one 
part of the farm program that has worked. It seems to me you would not 
go to that one and take that apart. Make the rest of them work as well. 
But I think it is interesting that the same people who are the 
Coalition for Sugar Reform, they have one common ingredient in the 
things they produce--grains, oilseed, dairy and sugar. In every 
circumstance, the return for these commodities to the people who 
produce them--the people who get up in the morning, do all the work, do 
the chores, spend the day in the field, harvest the crops, and take all 
the risks--in every circumstance, we have seen a substantial decline: 
Wheat, corn, soybean prices less than half what they were 4 years ago; 
milk prices a little more than half what they were a year ago; sugar 
prices down by a third.
  That is not, in my judgment, what this Congress, what this Senate 
ought to be expecting to have happen for our producers. I hope we will 
decide today, by an overwhelming margin, to table this amendment.
  Let me end as I began. I have great respect for the Senator from 
Arizona and others who may feel the way he does. I do not in any way 
suggest what he is doing is something he does not believe passionately 
about. But I believe very strongly this amendment ought to be tabled. 
This Congress ought to be about the business of strengthening the sugar 
program and making that sugar

[[Page 15564]]

program work as it has worked for so many years, not taking it apart. 
This is not a circumstance where our farmers are competing in free 
trade. There is not free trade in sugar. It is not a circumstance where 
farmers are getting a subsidy. There is no subsidy paid to sugar 
producers. It is a circumstance where this is a program that deserves 
the support of the Senate this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have a unanimous 
consent agreement to hold a vote on or about the McCain amendment at 2 
o'clock, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. With that in mind, Mr. President, I move to table the 
McCain amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold? I would like to have another 
chance to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is not to occur until 2 o'clock.
  Mr. CRAIG. Can I not register that at this time, with the intent that 
it occur at 2 o'clock? That is my intent, not to shut off debate but 
simply to register a motion to table at this time.
  I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, does that allow debate to continue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does.
  Mr. CRAIG. It would allow debate to continue.
  Mr. DORGAN. I was intending to offer the motion to table. I 
understood the Senator from North Dakota wished to speak. I think, if 
the Senator from Idaho is offering the motion to table, as long as 
there is debate time remaining, I support that.
  Mr. CRAIG. There is time remaining for this or other amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
introduced by the Senator from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to strike 
funding for the sugar program. I cannot stress enough how important 
this program is to the sugar beet growers in my state of Wyoming and 
agricultural communities throughout the nation.
  The sugarbeet farmers in Wyoming are already facing hard times. 
Almost one sixth of the sugar acreage in my State was just ravaged by a 
hailstorm and some fields are facing a complete loss. Since last 
summer, there has been a 30 percent drop in sugar prices to 
approximately $0.19 per pound--a 22 year low. And this October, Mexico 
is scheduled to increase its sugar exports to the American market 
tenfold, to 250,000 metric tons. And now we are considering dropping 
the sugar program. This amendment simply kicks these farmers while they 
are down, taking away what little price stability there is in their 
business.
  I would like to share with you a letter I just received from Wade 
Steiger, a sugar beet farmer in Frannie, Wyoming. Mr. Steiger writes 
``Dear Senator, I am currently in the sugar production business in the 
state of Wyoming and am wondering if I should remain in the business. 
What I need from you is your best assessment of the current mood in the 
body politic as to the direction of U.S. sugar policy * * * With the 
deck stacked against me like this, it would seem foolish to remain in 
the sugar business.''
  Frankly, I'm not sure what to tell him. I know what I would like to 
tell him. I would like to tell him that we in Congress are committed to 
making sure that he will be able to get a fair price for his product 
and that we understand the cyclical nature of his business and that 
there is a need for a progrma--a no-cost program--that offers a little 
stability to sugar prices. If this amendment passes, I will have to 
tell him otherwise.
  The sugar program has operated at no cost to the federal government 
since 1996 and the sugar purchase is not an outright payment to 
producers. This program covers the cost of purchasing surplus sugar 
which the government can then turn around and sell at a later date to 
recoup what is sometimes a large part of the up-front cost. Moreover, 
the sugar industry has already more than covered the cost of these 
purchases, with over $279 million paid into the U.S. Treasury during 
the 1990's in a special sugar marketing tax.
  Without this program, year-to-year supply changes caused by natural 
factors will lead to such price fluctuation that the profitability of 
sugar production would be too volatile for most farmers to stay in 
business. I believe that the government has a role to play in 
stabilizing commodity prices, especially when the program operates at 
no net cost to the taxpayers, as is the case with this program.
  The U.S. produces beet sugar more efficiently and at a lower cost 
than any other country in the world, but currently these producers are 
at a disadvantage on the artificial world market. If every government 
around the world stayed out of the sugar production business, we 
wouldn't need a program to keep our farmers competitive. But the fact 
is that world sugar production is heavily subsidized, and it simply 
does not make sense for us to send U.S. jobs overseas by destroying our 
own sugar program.
  I have the utmost faith in my farmers back in Wyoming, that in a 
truly free market they could grow sugar more efficiently and profitably 
than anyone else in the world. But because of subsidies paid to protect 
less efficient farmers in the European Union, Brazil and other 
countries, the world dump market prices have averaged only about half 
of the price it would be in the absence of subsidies.
  The E.U. remains committed to pouring money into a sugar support 
program that holds its prices at approximately $.31 per pound.
  Brazil's sugar production exploded in the past twenty years in the 
wake of its subsidy to produce ethanol from cane sugar. As Brazil has 
cut back its ethanol subsidy, the cane has been used to produce sugar 
and since the mid-1990's, it sugar production has doubled and its 
exports have tripled--all through its generous subsidies.
  In their race to produce subsidized sugar, Brazilian farmers have 
also had the benefit of far lower labor and environmental standards 
than American sugar farmers. Brazil's cane industry turned valuable 
forest land into farmland and continues to employ tens of thousands of 
children in the dangerous work of cutting cane.
  I believe the time has come to draw the line in this constant attack 
on rural America. This is not about farm welfare. This is not about 
protectionism. This is about giving our family farmers like Mr. Steiger 
a fair shake. I urge my colleagues to support a no-cost program that 
benefits these farmers and oppose this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Steiger's letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Wade Steiger,

                                        Frannie, WY, July 3, 2000.
       Dear Senator: I am currently in the sugar production 
     business in the state of Wyoming and am wondering if I should 
     remain in the business. What I need from you is your best 
     assessment of the current mood in the body politic as to the 
     direction of U.S. sugar policy. As I read the current policy, 
     the Mexicans will have free access to the U.S. market in the 
     near future, and the Mexicans have just signed a NAFTA-like 
     deal with the E.U. Under this arrangement the E.U. will have 
     access to a U.S. taxpayer supported U.S. sugar market and 
     would therefore effectively be getting a subsidy from both 
     their own government as well as ours. With the deck stacked 
     against me like this, it would seem foolish to remain in the 
     sugar business.
       My read on the political mood is that the sugar industry 
     has been laid on the altar of free trade and, if politically 
     expedient, will be sacrificed. I need to know if you or any 
     of your colleagues intend to do anything to change the 
     current situation before I decide whether or not to continue 
     in this business. I understand that giving a straight answer 
     to this question is politically risky, but I would appreciate 
     an answer with a minimum of political ``cover your ass''. I 
     am willing to take an answer in a non-recordable fashion, but 
     I prefer that you take a clear stand on the issue.
       Sincerely,
                                                     Wade Steiger.


[[Page 15565]]

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we are again debating the amendment by the 
Senator from Arizona. My colleagues may recall that this body rejected 
an identical amendment last year by a vote of 66-33.
  As I mentioned on the floor last August, the sugar program remains a 
great bargain for the American consumer. It's also one of the least 
expensive food items you will find in an American kitchen. Sugar is 
probably the best bargain you can find at the grocery store today. 
American sugar farmers and the U.S. sugar program help make sugar 
affordable.
  Consumers elsewhere around the globe do not enjoy the low prices we 
have in America. If you visit a grocery store in other industrialized 
nations you will get ``sticker shock'' when you pass the sugar display. 
Thanks to a farm program that assures stable supplies at reasonable 
prices, sugar is a remarkable value for American consumers. U.S. 
consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their 
counterparts in other industrialized nations. Low U.S. prices save 
consumers more than a billion dollars annually. That's why I say that 
the sugar program is a great deal for American consumers. Thanks to the 
sugar program, U.S. consumers enjoy a plentiful supply of sugar at 
bargain prices.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. If Congress terminates 
the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the economy 
disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a 
reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will go back to some of the things that 
were said here so the Record is crystal clear. When the Senator from 
Arizona says there are massive subsidies being paid to sugar producers, 
it is just wrong. That is not the way the sugar program works. There is 
not one nickel of payment made by the Federal Government to sugar 
producers--not one, not a penny. It is not a subsidy program here. That 
is not the way it works.
  That is part of the problem we have. We have people who do not know 
the program--really do not know the economics of world agriculture, 
really know nothing about the sugar industry and the sugar program--out 
here trying to pass laws that would have draconian, dramatic effects. 
They really are ill-informed. I don't know a nicer way to say it.
  When they say the world price of sugar is 8 cents, it is an 
absurdity. It costs 16 cents to 18 cents to produce sugar. How could 
the world price of sugar be 8 cents? It is not the world price of 
sugar, as has been said on the floor. The vast majority of sugar in the 
world sells under contract and those contract prices are not part of 
the calculation of what the Senator from Arizona calls the world price 
of sugar. That is excluded from those calculations. So when they talk 
about a world price of sugar, that is not the world price; it is a dump 
price. It is that sugar which is left over which is a small part of the 
world sugar supply that sells that was not part of a contract. It is 
not a world price. That is a misnomer. It is factually incorrect.
  Now let's go to the underlying assumption. The underlying assumption 
is that somehow the rest of the world is engaged in free market 
economics with respect to agriculture production. False. That is not 
even close to being right. Our major competitors, the Europeans, are 
spending about $50 billion a year to support their producers--$50 
billion. Here are the comparisons. This is from the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development. They are the ones who are in 
charge of keeping score on the question of who supports their producers 
at what level. Here is the European Union, our major competitor. They 
are supporting their producers on average $324 an acre. Here we are: 
$34 an acre. They are outgunning us 10 to 1.
  What the Senator from Arizona says to us is we ought to cut this some 
more. We ought to cut our level of support even further. Let's engage 
in total unilateral disarmament in this world battle over agriculture 
markets.
  What sense does that make? We tried that in the last farm bill. In 
the last farm bill, we cut our support for producers on average from 
$10 billion to $5 billion. We cut it in half on the theory that was 
going to be a good example for the Europeans and they would similarly 
reduce their support.
  What happened? They did not cut their support by a nickel. Instead, 
they stayed steady on course, buying up world market after world 
market. The USDA tells us they are going to surpass the United States 
in world market share for the first time in anyone's memory. That is 
where we are headed. We are headed for a circumstance in which America, 
which has dominated world agricultural trade, is headed for the No. 2 
position. And the Europeans believe, as they have told me, we are so 
prosperous that we will not fight back and, in fact, we will give up 
these markets.
  I say to the Senator from Arizona, he would never engage in 
unilateral disarmament in a military confrontation. Why is he insisting 
on it in an agricultural market confrontation? It makes no sense. Here 
we are, outgunned 10 to 1, and he wants to make it an even greater 
disparity; to say to our producers: We abandon you. We wave the white 
flag of surrender; we want the Europeans to take over these world 
agricultural markets that have long been ours.
  We have to quit being naive on what is going on in world trade. It is 
not free market. It is not free trade. It is managed trade; it is 
managed markets; it is a heavily subsidized battle over world market 
share. That is what is going on. We can choose to give up and run to 
the sidelines and give in or we can fight back. I hope the United 
States decides to fight back. I hope we decide we are not going to 
abandon our producers and allow our major competitors, the Europeans, 
to dominate world agricultural trade. In the long term, that would be 
an economic disaster for this country and certainly for the tens of 
thousands of farmers all across America who are dependent on the wisdom 
of this body to recognize what is happening, and to stand by their side 
and be ready to fight because I can assure you, that is what the 
Europeans are doing. They are fighting for world market share.
  As one of the top Europeans described to me: Senator, we believe we 
are in an agriculture trade war with the United States. We believe that 
at some point there will be a cease-fire in this trade war, and we 
believe that whoever occupies the high ground will be the winner.
  The high ground is world market share. They have told me at some 
point they think there is going to be a cease-fire, and whoever 
occupies the high ground will be the winner, and the high ground is 
world market share. That is what this is all about. The Europeans are 
aggressively spending to gain world market share to be in a position of 
world dominance in agriculture, and that strategy and that plan is 
working.
  If one looks at the trend lines over the last 20 years, one will find 
the Europeans have gone from being the major importing region in the 
world to the major exporting region today. They have done it in 20 
years. They have done it by discipline. They have done it by a plan. 
They have done it by a strategy. They are counting on us not to be 
paying attention. They are counting on us to give up. They are counting 
on us to give in. They are counting on us to wave the white flag of 
surrender.
  I pray this body does not go any further down this road of unilateral 
surrender in world agriculture because we have already given up too 
much. The Europeans support their producers $324 an acre. The United 
States supports its producers $34 an acre.
  The Senator from Arizona said: Let's make this disparity even 
greater. That is a disaster. That is a disaster, and we have the chance 
to stop it by this vote at 2 o'clock. I hope we take the opportunity.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the purpose of

[[Page 15566]]

Senator Wellstone offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 3922

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3922.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3922.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 increased funding for the Grain Inspection, 
      Packers and Stockyards Administration for investigations of 
   anticompetitive behavior, rapid response teams, the Hog Contract 
   Library, examinations of the competitive structure of the poultry 
   industry, civil rights activities, and information staff, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 9, line 6, strike ``$67,038,000'' and insert 
     ``$63,088,000, of which not less than $12,195,000 shall be 
     used for food assistance program studies and evaluations''.
       On page 23, line 21, strike ``$27,269,000: Provided,'' and 
     insert ``$31,219,000: Provided, That not less than $3,950,000 
     shall be used for investigations of anticompetitive behavior, 
     rapid response teams, the Hog Contract Library, examination 
     of the competitive structure of the poultry industry, civil 
     rights activities, and information staff: Provided 
     further,''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Harkin, Daschle, and Feingold be added as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before proceeding, I say to the Senator 
from Nevada, the Democratic whip, if we have a vote at 2, I believe I 
can finish with my presentation on this amendment and I will be pleased 
to go to another amendment right after the vote if my colleague wants 
me to move this along.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Minnesota --Senator 
Cochran is not here--we have been alternating back and forth. We 
appreciate the cooperation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I will do 
this amendment and if there is a Republican amendment next, I will then 
follow that next Republican amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment, again, 
with Senators Harkin, Daschle, and Feingold, about competitive markets. 
I am hoping there will be a strong, if you will, free enterprise, pro-
competition vote for this amendment, especially when it comes to 
looking out for the interests of our producers, in particular our 
Nation's livestock producers.
  This amendment will fully fund the President's budget request for the 
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration, called GIPSA, 
funding they need to look at market concentration.
  What we see right now--and it is a disturbing trend in our economy 
and certainly a disturbing trend in the food industry--is an increasing 
concentration of power. We see inadequate price information both for 
producers and consumers. We see lack of competition. We see 
anticompetitive practices. Consequently, GIPSA has been asked to assume 
a more prominent role, as they should, in ensuring competitiveness--
that is all this amendment is about--and fairness in the livestock 
industry. GIPSA is conducting a growing number of investigations on 
market concentration in agriculture, and they should be doing just this 
work. The point is, they should be adequately funded to do the job.
  What this amendment does is ensure GIPSA has the resources to meet 
these additional responsibilities, and it increases funding for GIPSA--
I say to Senators and staff, Democrats and Republicans, who are 
listening--by a total of $3.95 million to fund these essential 
programs. I am going to list these programs in a moment.
  I recall a gathering I attended in Iowa. Senator Harkin I believe was 
there. Senator Grassley was there. At this gathering, we had one family 
farmer after another basically saying: Where is the Packers and 
Stockyard Administration? Why are they not involved in representing us? 
Where are they as we see more and more of these conglomerates taking 
over more and more of the market and we do not have the opportunity to 
compete? They should be doing their job.
  What we heard in return from Mike Dunn was: We will do the job, but 
we need the resources.
  That is what this amendment is about: making sure they have the 
resources to do the job they are supposed to do by virtue of the law of 
the land.
  What will the amendment do? It will add $1.2 million for 
anticompetitive behavior investigations. This is to look at what is 
going on in the industry and aggressively pursue especially 
investigations into anticompetitive activity in the livestock industry.
  There will be $1.3 million for rapid response teams. This will 
enhance GIPSA's effectiveness in addressing major investigative issues 
of immediate concern when it comes to anticompetitive practices or 
trade practice issues.
  It will allow for $200,000 for the hog contract library. This will be 
used to comply with section 22 of the fiscal year 2000 Ag 
appropriations bill. This is the mandatory price reporting.
  There will be $800,000 to examine the competitive structure of the 
poultry industry which will permit GIPSA to expand its activity in the 
poultry market to take a close look at characteristics of markets for 
poultry grower services.
  There will be $100,000 for civil rights activities which will allow 
GIPSA to resolve its backlog of EEO complaints and to increase emphasis 
on proactive efforts to maintain EEO goals and objectives. All of us 
are familiar with the grievances and the just cause of many African 
American farmers in our country.
  There will be $350,000 for information staff at GIPSA that will 
enable them to develop new educational programs which will be targeted 
to small and socially disadvantaged farmers and improve relations with 
producers.
  This is a modest amendment. There should be strong support for this 
amendment. It is all about putting some free enterprise back into the 
free enterprise system. It is all about being on the side of our 
producers.
  It simply says: Let's get the funding up to the administration's 
request. I think we should be doing much more than this, and I hope 
that by the end of this Congress--in fact, I do not hope, it absolutely 
has to happen--we will pass the Farmers and Ranchers Fair Competition 
Act which has been introduced by Senators Daschle and Leahy, and a 
number of others of us who have worked on this as well. Really, what we 
ought to be talking about is some legislation that makes antitrust 
action a reality in this country. In the food industry we need it.
  When I travel in the countryside--and I do quite often--the one issue 
on which farm organizations agree--they don't agree on many--the one 
issue that brings farmers and rural people together is that we need to 
have more competition. We need to have some antitrust action. These 
conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table, and they are 
forcing us out.
  I do not know why we are so slow to take up this cause.
  Let me give this amendment a little bit of context.
  In the past decade and a half, we have seen an explosion of mergers 
and acquisitions and anticompetitive practices with record 
concentration in American agriculture.
  The top four pork packers have increased their market share from 36 
percent to 57 percent.
  The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32 
percent to 80 percent.
  The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40 
percent to 62 percent.
  The market share of the top four soybean crushers has jumped from 54 
percent to 80 percent.

[[Page 15567]]

  Forty-nine percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the 
largest four firms.
  The list goes on and on.
  The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of the 
elevator facilities in the country.
  The result of this is that you have had this surge of concentration. 
You have these conglomerates which have a tremendous amount of power, 
you have GIPSA which does not have the resources to do the job, and you 
have the Senate that has not passed a strong piece of legislation that 
calls for antitrust action. As a result of that, the farmers, 
everywhere they turn, don't get a fair shake. When they look to whom 
they buy from, it is a few large firms that dominate the market. When 
they look to whom they sell to, it is a few large firms that dominate 
the market.
  Everybody in this Chamber knows that if you are at an auction, you 
are more likely to get a good price when there are a lot of bidders. I 
think all of us are for competition. We need to have more competition, 
but we need to have a level playing field for our producers.
  I want to report on both the horizontal concentration, that was 
reflected in the statistics I mentioned, but also the ways in which we 
have the vertical integration.
  Take the pork industry. Pork packers are buying up what is called 
captive supply--hogs that they own or have contracted under marketing 
agreements. If this trend continues, you are going to see grain, 
soybean production--it will be basically from the very beginning, from 
the very point level of production, all the way to the supermarket.
  The problem with this kind of vertical concentration is it destroys 
competitive markets. Potential competitors often don't know the sale 
price for the goods at any point in the process. There is no price 
discovery--essentially no effective competition. If it continues at the 
current pace, we are going to basically have all the industry dominated 
this way.
  Moreover, the vertical integration stacks the deck against the 
farmers.
  In April 1999, there was a report from the Minnesota Land Stewardship 
Project that found: Packers' practice of acquiring captive supplies 
through contracts and direct ownership is reducing the number of 
opportunities for small- and medium-sized farmers to sell their hogs. 
With fewer buyers, and more captive supply, there is less competition 
for our independent producers.
  I want to make sure we can at least get this additional $3.95 million 
to GIPSA so they can do the job of being there on the side of 
producers, so they can do the job of investigating potential or real 
anticompetitive practices.
  It is a modest amendment, but it is hugely important to family 
farmers.
  Leland Swensen, president of the National Farmers Union, recently 
testified--he is right--

       The increasing level of market concentration, with the 
     resulting lack of competition in the marketplace, is one of 
     the top concerns of [American] farmers and ranchers. At most 
     farm and ranch meetings, market concentration ranks as either 
     the first or second in priority of issues of concern. Farmers 
     and ranchers believe that lack of competition is a key factor 
     in the low commodity prices they are receiving.

  Some of these big packers are raking in record profits while our 
livestock producers are facing extinction. The farm/retail spread, as 
every Senator from every agriculture State knows, is growing wider and 
wider and wider, between what our producers get paid for what they 
produce and what consumers pay. There is a whole lot of money and a 
whole lot of profit that is made in the middle. I do not mind that, but 
I would like to see the livestock producers and our other producers in 
our farm States get a fair shake.
  If there is one thing farmers ask for more than anything else, it is 
a level playing field. If there is one thing they are worried about, it 
is this increasing concentration. We ought to be able to get this 
additional money to GIPSA.
  The vote on this amendment is all about whether or not we are willing 
to be there on the side of these family farmers, whether we are on the 
side of making sure we deal with anticompetitive practices, and whether 
we take their concerns seriously.
  One of the reasons I bring this amendment to the floor--yes, the 
administration asked for this additional $3.95 million. I remember the 
meeting in Iowa with Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin. And I 
remember Mike Dunn saying: Give us the money to do the job. That is 
true.
  As I have said, these conglomerates have muscled their way to the 
dinner table, and they have pushed our producers out. We have too few 
firms that dominate too much of the market, and we do not have enough 
competition. That is what this is about. I have said that.
  But I also want all Senators to understand that this amendment is 
also offered in the context of the record low prices and the record low 
income. To tell you the truth, the AMTA payments are the only reason 
some of our producers are able to continue, although those payments all 
too often amount to a subsidy in an inverse relationship to need, and 
farmers are still demanding a decent price.
  But the whole issue of price, the whole issue of producers getting a 
fair price, is highly correlated to whether or not there is going to be 
some competition. It is highly correlated to whether or not we are 
going to take antitrust action seriously.
  There is a reason we passed the Sherman Act in the late 1800s. There 
is a reason we passed the Clayton Act in the early 1900s. The reason 
is, to be there on the side of our producers.
  This amendment is a small amendment. It is a modest amendment. But I 
think it puts Senators on record as to whether or not we are serious 
about antitrust action.
  The health and the vitality of rural America, our communities--I say 
to the Presiding Officer, who knows quite a bit about agriculture, 
coming from the State of Illinois--is not based upon the number of 
acres of land that someone farms; it is not based upon the number of 
animals someone owns. The health and the vitality of rural America is 
based upon the number of family farmers who live in the community, 
because when family farmers live in a community, somebody is going to 
own the land; no question about it.
  We will always have an agriculture industry. We are always going to 
have a food industry. What is a more precious commodity than food? It 
is more precious than oil. The question is, How many farmers are going 
to live in the community that supports the schools, that supports the 
churches, that supports the synagogues, that supports small businesses? 
The farm dollar, if you are talking about a family farm, multiplies in 
the community where people live, where they buy--a community they care 
about. When you move to these conglomerates basically being in control 
and absentee investment, absentee ownership, when they make a profit, 
they don't invest it back into the community.
  John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs sums it up this way:

       Replacing mid-size farms with big farms reduces middle-
     class entrepreneurial opportunities in farm communities, at 
     best replacing them with wage labor.

  He goes on to say:

       A system of economically viable, owner-operated family 
     farms contributed more to communities than systems 
     characterized by inequality and large numbers of farm 
     laborers with below-average incomes and little ownership or 
     control of productive assets.

  Can't we get at least a little additional funding to GIPSA so they 
can do the job, so they can be there on the side of our producers, so 
they can investigate whether or not we have monopoly practices, so they 
can investigate whether or not family farmers are getting a decent 
price, so they can investigate whether or not we have a few packers who 
are in collusion, who are involved in anticompetitive practices? I 
think we can.
  To provide a little more context, we are living in a time of merger 
mania. Joel Klein, who is doing a great job, head of the Justice 
Department's antitrust division, has pointed out that the value of last 
year's mergers equaled the combined value of all mergers from 1990 to 
1996.
  I heard Senator McCain make part of his argument. I am not sure I 
agreed

[[Page 15568]]

with all of his argument, but one of the things Senator McCain focuses 
on, which is fair enough, is the whole issue of money and politics. I 
would argue that here we have a perfect example. Pick your industry. In 
agriculture, I am talking about the way in which these conglomerates 
have controlled the market. How about the airline industry? In my State 
of Minnesota, we are reading every other day that Northwest might merge 
with American Airlines. We have already heard about U.S. Air and 
United. We only have about six airlines now. We might get down to three 
megacompanies. The question is, What is the impact on consumers and 
what is the impact on the employees? What is the impact on the State?
  I could talk about banking. I could talk about energy. I could talk 
about health insurance. I could talk about any number of sectors of the 
economy. I could talk about telecommunications. Look at what has 
happened since we passed that bill. Where is the protection for 
consumers? And with all due respect, when we talk about a key issue, 
the flow of information in a democracy, we don't want to have a few 
media conglomerates controlling almost all of the flow of information 
in a democracy.
  I am speaking about the food industry, this very modest amendment. We 
make policy choices. We paved the way for family farming with the 
Homestead Act. It was a good thing to do. We enacted parity legislation 
which was all about better prices, fair prices for family farmers in 
the 1940s. It was a good thing to do. Then we cut loan rates in the 
1950s and 1960s. We passed the ``freedom to fail'' bill--I call it the 
``freedom to fail'' bill--a few short years ago. It dramatically 
reduced prices farmers got in the marketplace. I don't think it was a 
very wise thing to do. Above and beyond all of that, today, what I am 
saying is, let's at least vote for this modest amendment.
  Going back to Lee Swenson's testimony, of the National Farmers Union:

       The remaining firms are increasing market share and 
     political power to the point of controlling the governments 
     that once regulated the firms. Some of the biggest 
     corporations have gotten tax breaks or other government 
     incentives. . . . Corporate interests have also called on the 
     government to weaken environmental standards and immigrant 
     labor protections in order to allow them to reduce production 
     costs.

  The bigger these agribusinesses get, the more influence they have 
over our policy choices. The bigger they get, the more money they can 
spend on political campaigns. The bigger they get, the more lobbyists 
they can hire. The bigger they get, the more likely they are to be 
named special U.S. trade representatives, as is the case with the CEO 
of Monsanto. The bigger they get, the more likely public officials will 
be to confuse their interests with the public interest, even if they 
don't already do that. And the bigger they get, the more weight they 
will pull in the media. It is a vicious cycle. These conglomerates have 
entirely too much political power. Their overwhelming size makes it too 
easy for them to dictate policies and to get even bigger.
  There is something we can do in the short term. That is what this 
amendment is about. We can provide GIPSA with adequate funding to 
conduct on-the-ground investigations of market concentration.
  This is a modest amendment. We ought to have 100 votes for this 
amendment. Over the longer term, we ought to do more. We ought to focus 
on how we can enhance the bargaining power of our producers. We ought 
to figure out how we can be there on the side of producers, on the side 
of farmers, on the side of ranchers, on the side of rural America, and 
on the side of consumers. I look forward to bringing a significant 
piece of antitrust legislation that Senator Daschle has introduced to 
the floor of the Senate and having a major debate about what kind of 
antitrust action makes sense.
  Referring to the minimum wage, in many ways that is what family 
farmers are saying, too. We have families in the country who are 
saying: We want to be able to make enough of a wage that we can support 
our families. We have family farmers who are saying: We want to be able 
to get at least a decent price so that we can afford to support our 
families.
  We should be sensitive to that concern. We should do no less than to 
at least pass this very modest amendment. This amendment would increase 
the fund for GIPSA by $3.95 billion to fund essential programs. The 
offset comes out of ERS.
  I think this vote is a vote that is critically important in farm 
country. It is also a critically important vote for Senators who are on 
the side of consumers. I hope we will have strong support for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to my understanding, the Senator from 
Mississippi, the manager of the bill, wishes to make a motion to table. 
If that is the case, I would like to enter into a unanimous consent 
request that the vote occur following the vote on the motion to table 
on the sugar amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it was my 
intention to move to table the Wellstone amendment, but I understand 
there may be other Senators who want to speak on that amendment. I do 
not want to cut off anybody. I do not intend to move to table at this 
time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the Senate will 
seriously consider the proposal the Senator from Minnesota made. 
Senator Wellstone offered an amendment to actually cut the Economic 
Research Service funding provided in this bill and add the money to the 
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration for some 
investigations. He lists the investigations that ought to be 
undertaken, which would be funded by this additional money. The fact 
is, any amount of money could be spent investigating these subjects. He 
lists these: investigations of anticompetitive behavior; rapid response 
teams; the hog contract library; examinations of the competitive 
structure of the poultry industry, civil rights activities, and 
informational staff.
  What I am saying is that I would hate for the Senate to be put into a 
position of having to analyze this and trying to figure out if we have 
enough money for the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards 
Administration and all of the responsibilities they have. We have tried 
to go through the President's budget request, analyze it carefully, and 
then present to the Senate an allocation of limited funds, and suggest 
that this is appropriate for the Senate to pass. We think the Economic 
Research Service, to be cut as proposed by Senator Wellstone, would be 
put in a difficult position of trying to provide accurate, reliable 
information that is helpful to farmers who are in the business of 
producing crops and commodities, who make their living at this, and who 
depend upon the Government agency that will be cut by this amendment. 
We think the funds are needed. We have checked with that agency to see 
what the impact of this offset would be on them, and they--maybe 
predictably--suggest that it would work a real hardship.
  We have had a difficult time making available funds for some of these 
agencies to accommodate pay increases, staffing requirements, and all 
of the other items of expense in the operation of the Department of 
Agriculture that would support important economic activities in our 
country. And so rather than try to figure out what to try to do with 
this amendment and how to resolve it, I really think the best thing to 
do is to move to table it and ask the Senate to support the committee's 
judgment.
  I have a lot of regard for the Senator from Minnesota and his 
enthusiasm for these subjects. I sympathize with his concerns. He has 
made a good speech. He has made a persuasive appeal to the Senate. In 
spite of that, I really think we need to stick with the committee's 
judgment on this. This bill has been developed on a bipartisan basis, 
with the full participation of Senators on the Democratic side. We have 
listened to suggestions from all Senators on both

[[Page 15569]]

sides. So my hope is that the Senate will trust the committee. That is 
what the committee structure is about when it comes to questions such 
as this. There is no way for each individual Senator to look at this 
amendment and figure out all the practical consequences of it, consider 
the offset suggested, and then make a decision.
  Do you support the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota or 
do you support the committee? That is the issue. I hope the Senate will 
support the committee's judgment on this issue.
  I know now, after inquiry, that there are no other Senators who have 
asked to speak on this amendment. I move to table the Wellstone 
amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the Wellstone amendment occur immediately following the vote on the 
motion to table the McCain amendment, which is going to take place at 2 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendments be in order to the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3917

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we are getting ready to vote in a 
few minutes. I wanted to thank my distinguished colleagues from 
Mississippi and Iowa for managing an important appropriations bill. It 
is so important to my State of Louisiana and to many States and 
communities in this Nation.
  I want to take 2 minutes, though, to address the sugar issue that was 
earlier debated on the floor and to submit some things for the Record. 
I listened to the debate this morning, and I know the sugar program, 
every year, seems to conjure up all sorts of images that the opponents 
of this cost-effective program try to use: ``It is a sweet deal.'' ``It 
is a candy-coated program.'' ``It leaves a sour taste in people's 
mouths.'' Don't let these quick sound bites fool you. All the sugar 
farmers and sugar beet farmers and producers in Louisiana and other 
communities who support these farmers and producers want is fairness.
  Mr. President, there is nothing sweet about fatigue. That is what 
many of our farmers in this Nation are experiencing this year--fatigue. 
They are tired. They are stressed. Prices are low. There is drought in 
many areas of our Nation. Farmers have been through a tough time, and 
sugar farmers are no exception.
  This is a program that works. This is a program to which the 
taxpayers provide very little money. This is a loan program. Actually, 
as has been said in the Record over and over again, the sugar policy 
that we now have supported overwhelmingly--good support year after 
year--doesn't cost the Government anything. It has been a revenue 
raiser of nearly $300 million during the decade of the nineties. All of 
the 300 to 400 sugar farmers in Louisiana, their suppliers, and the 
communities that support them want is fairness. They would be shocked 
to know that the program that we understand as a loan program is termed 
by some as a ``giveaway'' program because they believe they are giving 
back. They believe they are paying taxes, and they are. They believe 
they are supporting communities in Louisiana and others around the 
Nation. It is not just Louisiana; it is Florida, Texas, California, 
Wyoming, and Montana, as I can see and share from the map in front of 
me.
  This is an important industry in our Nation, and I think the 
underlying amendment would be devastating, obviously, to eliminate this 
program at a time when there is such a great need and at a time when it 
is actually a revenue raiser.
  Let me also make a point that the opponents of the sugar program 
argue that we are trying to kill all imports. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. Nearly 20 percent of all of our sugar needs are met 
from imports from 40 different nations. This program works. It is a 
loan program. It is an issue of fairness. It is a time of difficulty. 
It is not time to eliminate this program now.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the 
underlying amendment that would eliminate this program, which has been 
helpful not only to Louisiana but to many States and many communities 
around the Nation.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the McCain amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?--
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Biden
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Collins
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bunning
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 3922

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 3922. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bryan

[[Page 15570]]


     Burns
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bunning
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to 
table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, could I just offer a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield without losing my right to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                       Explanation For Not Voting

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 219 I was 
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would 
have voted for the motion to table the McCain amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be so recorded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will reflect the Senator's 
decision.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Durbin and I wanted to take this 
opportunity to urge support for our amendment which is intended to 
speed up generic drug reviews at the Food and Drug Administration. We 
are pleased to announce that the Hatch-Durbin amendment is cosponsored 
by Senators DeWine, Leahy, Wyden, Feinstein, Graham of Florida and 
Voinovich.
  Specifically, our amendment increases funding for FDA's Center for 
Drug Evaluation and Review by $2.0 million over the Committee-
recommended amount.
  We intend these funds to be used to provide much-needed additional 
resources, that is, appropriately-equipped staff, to the Office of 
Generic Drugs. This will help them reduce review times for generic 
alternatives to brand-name pharmaceuticals, a considerable benefit to 
the consumer.
  One way they can do this is by establishing an additional chemistry 
division which will allow OGD to increase its efficiency thus 
permitting applications for new generic drugs to be considered and 
approved much more rapidly, giving patients access to these products 
much more quickly.
  Mr. President, when I travel throughout my home state of Utah, I am 
besieged by constituents who raise very valid complaints about the need 
to improve drug coverage for the elderly and others who cannot afford 
needed medicines. I am very sympathetic to those concerns, and have 
made this a high legislative priority.
  But while we are in the midst of devising a program to improve 
Medicare coverage of pharmaceuticals, it is important to remember that 
generic drugs offer a less-costly, safe alternative to brand-name 
medicines for seniors and others who cannot always afford prescription 
drugs.
  Our amendment will help offer those who are struggling to make ends 
meet a viable alternative. It will help get less expensive and more 
affordable prescription drugs on the market more quickly so that 
seniors will have additional choice when it comes to purchasing their 
medications.
  None of us wants these vulnerable citizens to be faced with the 
Hobson's choice of whether to purchase food or needed medications. The 
American public, especially our seniors, can only benefit from having 
more generic drug products available to them.
  The problem we face is that the level of FDA resources devoted toward 
the review and approval of generic drugs can be termed ``modest'' at 
best.
  The Office of Generic Drugs is currently funded at $37.8 million and 
was flat-lined in the Administration's FY 2001 budget request.
  In contrast to this relatively modest sum available for generic drug 
review, I would point out that the overall budget for human drug review 
at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is $308 million. 
This represents a total of 2,554 full time equivalents.
  So the amount devoted to generic drug barely exceeds 10 per cent of 
the human drug review budget.
  Hiring additional professional review personnel, together with the 
necessary computer equipment, at OGD would cost about $100,000 per 
reviewer. So our amendment will translate into about 20 additional 
staff members and the computer equipment they need which would 
certainly be adequate to fund a new chemistry division.
  The FDA generic drug program currently utilizes about 370 staff 
members. This amendment, coupled with the $1.2 million, already in the 
Senate bill will give the generic drug unit at FDA a needed shot in the 
arm.
  As a principal author of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term 
Restoration Act of 1984, I have long been interested in how we can 
provide better access to pharmaceuticals, which can do so much to 
improve the health of the American public. Our nation needs both 
innovative new drugs and affordable generic drugs.
  I am particularly pleased that today about 40 percent of all U.S. 
prescriptions are written for generic products--most of which were made 
available for generic competition under the 1984 law.
  These generic drugs save consumers about $8 billion to $10 billion 
each year. And that's according to a CBO estimate based on 1994 data, 
so it seems reasonable to project that today's savings must be even 
higher than the old $8 billion to $10 billion annual savings estimate.
  Many of us have been pleased to learn that, since 1994, generic drug 
approval times have generally decreased: the median approval time was 
26.9 months in 1994; 27.0 months in 1995; 23 months in 1996; 19.3 
months in 1997; and, 18 months in 1998.
  Unfortunately, this five year downward trend was reversed in 1999. 
The approval time rose to 18.6 months. This was in a year when the 
number of products approved actually fell from 225 drugs to 186 drugs. 
So the time per completed review grew for the first time in 5 years and 
it is now growing at a time when many important drug products will be 
coming off patent.
  We cannot afford to let this continue.
  The data on the monthly averages rending applications are also 
troublesome. Under the law, FDA has 180 days to act on a generic drug 
application.
  Let's look at what is happening with the number of generic drug 
applications that are overdue--that is at FDA for more than 6 months. 
In 1995 the monthly average of backlogged generic drug applications was 
46 applications.
  This number increased to 59 in 1996.
  It jumped to 109 in 1997.
  In 1998, it rose to 127 overdue applications.
  And last year, the average monthly number of overdue generic 
applications rose again to 147 overdue applications.
  So the number of overdue generic drug applications has grown by more 
than 300 percent since 1995.
  Clearly, this trend needs to be reversed.
  It seems obvious to me that we want FDA to have sufficient resources 
to efficiently evaluate generic drug applications. The funds the Hatch-
Durbin amendment provides would be sufficient to fund about 20 full-
time equivalents (or ``FTEs'') in the Office of Generic Drugs.
  Given the fact that so many important medications are about to lose 
their patent status, it is imperative that FDA has the necessary 
skilled personnel and computer equipment to do the job of assuring the 
American public that generic drug products come on the market as soon 
as possible.
  We need to make sure that FDA's Office of Generic Drugs has 
sufficient resources to conduct timely reviews of generic drug 
applications. That's what this amendment accomplishes, and that is why 
Senator Durbin and I have

[[Page 15571]]

joined together in a bi-partisan manner to work to see that the promise 
of more affordable generic drug products reach the American public.
  Mr. President, this is an important amendment. I am pleased that the 
managers are willing to put it into the bill. I think it is something 
that will benefit everybody in this country. Hopefully, we can resolve 
some of these conflicts with regard to generic drugs and help bring the 
price of drugs down, as the Hatch-Waxman bill has done for the last 16 
years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the Senator from 
Utah, Mr. Hatch, in offering this amendment for consideration by the 
Senate.
  This is an amendment which will provide $2 million more for the 
processing of approvals of generic drugs.
  We are all familiar with the issue of prescription drug prices. We 
certainly understand that Congress should do as much as possible to 
help reduce the high cost of these prescription drugs, particularly for 
the elderly and disabled.
  One of the things we are doing with this bipartisan amendment is 
providing more money to the Food and Drug Administration for generic 
drug approvals. The high prices of drugs can be significantly reduced 
by putting more generic drugs on the market. Generic drugs typically 
enter the market 25 to 30 percent below the cost of brand name drugs 
and within 2 years are 60 to 70 percent cheaper than brand name drugs. 
Increasing the development of safe and effective generic drugs, is good 
for American consumers.
  Key to increasing access to such drugs, is making sure that the 
approval process is as efficient as possible. This chart illustrates 
the number of applications pending more than 180 days before the Food 
and Drug Administration for generic drugs. As we can see, the numbers 
have continued to increase. This is because the numbers that the Food 
and Drug Administration is being asked to approve has increased over 
the past few years.
  In fact, the median approval time for generics has steadily decreased 
from 19.6 months in 1997 to a little over 18 months in 1998 and 17.3 
months in 1999. But under the present budget, according to the Food and 
Drug Administration, they are estimated to go up again in 2000 and 
2001, and we are going to see a slowdown in the approval of generics.
  Senator Hatch and I have offered this amendment to provide $2 million 
to the Office of Generic Drugs. It is on top of the increase which the 
bill already puts in place of $1.2 million. This money will allow them 
to hire the professional people to approve the drugs, to put the 
computers and technology in place so that they can move forward with 
new ways to assess the drugs on a more timely basis, and to make 
certain that these drugs are available for American consumers as 
quickly as possible.
  Very soon some of the blockbuster patent drugs are going to come off 
patent. Let me give some examples: Mevacor for high cholesterol, 
Vasotec and Zestril for high blood pressure, Glucophage for diabetics, 
Accutane for cystic acne, Lovenox to prevent blood clotting and 
Prilosec for those with stomach acid, heartburn or ulcers. These brand 
name drugs have sales of billions of dollars. Prilosec alone has sales 
of over $2.8 billion annually. Together, these drugs represented over 
$8 billion in sales in 1997. This year, their sales are certainly far 
more than this.
  If we want to make certain these drugs move from brand name to 
generic so consumers across America can afford them, then the 
investment in the Food and Drug Administration which Senator Hatch and 
I propose is money well spent. I am happy to join Senator Hatch in this 
effort. I hope the Senate will approve this amendment and make it part 
of this appropriation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I ask exactly how we are proceeding 
here?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think what the manager of the bill wanted 
to do was to have the Harkin amendment disposed of at this stage.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the pending 
business is the Cochran amendment to the Harkin amendment. It would be 
helpful, just as a coherent way of proceeding with the bill, if we 
would proceed in regular order.
  Mr. REID. Senator Harkin is here.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is my hope we could proceed to dispose of that 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Momentarily, we should.
  Mr. COCHRAN. As I suggested earlier, if the Senator will yield 
further, it would suit me if we adopted both the Cochran amendment and 
the Harkin amendment on a voice vote to try to resolve the issue in 
conference with the House. I made that suggestion earlier.
  Mr. REID. I suggested that to Senator Harkin and when I spoke to him 
earlier today, he was not willing to do that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask both Senators, the Senator from 
Mississippi or the Senator from Nevada, after we make a decision as to 
how we will proceed with the Harkin amendment and the Cochran 
amendment, am I in order next or do we go to an amendment on the other 
side? Just so I know whether I should need to be here. I am trying to 
move things forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Mississippi 
is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that spirit of cooperation 
very much. I hope we can move on and complete action on the bill 
sometime this afternoon. To do that, we are going to have to act on the 
amendments we have that are going to be offered. It doesn't matter, in 
my view, who goes next. I don't really care. I am anxious that we 
proceed and move along and make good progress on the bill. Some 
Senators have already indicated that the list of amendments we have in 
order to be offered to the bill will not all be offered. That is good 
news. We have had some Senators suggest that they are willing to forgo 
offering their amendments.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may reclaim the floor, the two leaders 
have instructed the managers of the bill, as I understand it, that they 
want to finish this bill today. Is that the manager's understanding?
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as soon as 
we make a decision on the Harkin amendment, I be allowed to offer an 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I think there is already a unanimous consent agreement that 
following the amendment by the majority, the Senator from Minnesota 
will be next in line.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3938

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the regular 
order right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the Cochran 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you.
  Mr. President, let's go back to where we were a few hours ago when I 
first offered an amendment this morning. That amendment would state 
clearly that the Department of Agriculture--the Secretary of 
Agriculture--had the authority to set standards for pathogen reduction 
in meat and poultry inspection. Again, the amendment was carefully 
drafted not to set the standard. That should not be our business.
  The reason for the amendment was precipitated by a court case in 
Texas in May in which a Federal district court judge found that the 
Department of Agriculture--the Secretary of Agriculture--lacked the 
statutory authority to set and enforce pathogen reductions in meat and 
poultry inspection.

[[Page 15572]]

  When the Department established its new inspection rules in 1996, the 
USDA adopted a new food safety system based on hazard analysis, 
critical control points, and pathogen reduction standards, otherwise 
known now as HACCP. The system was designed to protect human health by 
reducing the levels of bacteria contamination in meat and poultry 
products. It has been in existence now for 4 years.
  What then happened was we had this plant in Texas, Supreme Beef. 
Three times they were warned by the inspectors that they were not 
meeting the salmonella reduction standards. Three times they failed. It 
is not that they weren't warned adequately; they were. On the third 
time when they failed it, the USDA did the only thing they could do 
under the authority they have, and that was to withdraw inspection from 
the plant, and, in effect, by withdrawing inspection from the plant, 
the plant had to shut down.
  The plant hired attorneys and took the case to district court and got 
an injunction. They got an injunction against the USDA so that they 
could keep operating, and they did. Then the judge decided, after a 
hearing, that the USDA lacked the legislative and statutory authority 
to both implement the rule and to enforce it. That is why we are here 
today with this amendment.
  We have worked long and hard on this. This is not something new. 
During the 1980s and 1990s, both the House and the Senate Agriculture 
Committees had numerous hearings. The Department of Agriculture, under 
both Republican and Democratic Presidents, had numerous field hearings 
and rulemaking procedures. They eventually came up with this new 
program that blended the old inspection program with new flexibility 
for industry and new standards for pathogen reduction.
  Why was this necessary? Because we have bigger plants now, faster 
assembly lines, meat and poultry go through the system faster; and we 
also found increases, according to the Centers for Disease Control, in 
a number of foodborne illnesses that we had not seen before in our 
country. So we wanted to have a system whereby we could assure 
consumers of the highest level of confidence that once that meat left 
the slaughterhouse, once it left the processor, it would be as safe as 
possible.
  Here again are CDC's statistics on foodborne illness. I had this 
chart this morning. It indicates that there are 76 million illnesses 
every year because of foodborne pathogens, 325,000 hospitalizations, 
and 5,000 deaths.
  Now, since we established the rule in 1996, salmonella rates in 
ground beef have dropped 43 percent for small plants and 23 percent for 
large plants.
  Since these performance standards were issued in 1996, we have had 
this big drop in salmonella in ground beef. The standard is working. 
But now a district court has said USDA lacks the statutory authority to 
enforce that standard. That was why I offered my amendment this 
morning. Not to set a standard but only to say USDA has the statutory 
authority to enforce a standard once it has been set. Adoption of my 
amendment doesn't mean that a packing plant or a processing plant 
couldn't still go to court and say: Your rule is arbitrary or it is 
onerous or it is inapplicable. But we never got to that in the Supreme 
Beef case. The Court just said they lacked the authority to set the 
rule.
  So they have thrown overboard years and years of work by the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, the House Committee on Agriculture, and the 
Department of Agriculture under both Republicans and Democrats, and 
Republican and Democratic Secretaries of Agriculture to make progress 
in improving food safety.
  This morning, I tried to give statutory authority to the Secretary of 
Agriculture because without authority to enforce food safety standards, 
consumers are left exposed in this country. All we are trying to do is 
give them that authority.
  There was a motion to table the amendment made by the Senator from 
Mississippi. The motion to table lost on a tie vote. The Senator from 
Mississippi then put a second-degree amendment on my amendment. We were 
taking a look at it trying to figure out exactly what it did. It only 
changes a few words in my amendment. My amendment says at the end, 
standards ``established by the Secretary''--not our standard but 
standards set by the Secretary. The amendment by the Senator from 
Mississippi strikes that ``established by the Secretary'' and says 
``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' The key part of his amendment is 
``and that are shown to be adulterated.''
  What do those words mean?
  First of all, when they say ``promulgated with the advice of the 
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods,'' 
the committee was were there when they first came up with the 
standards. They had input on the standards when they were established 
in 1996. There may be debate about the extent of consultation, but they 
were consulted. But the key words of the amendment by the Senator from 
Mississippi are these: ``that are shown to be adulterated.''
  What does that mean? If the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi 
is adopted, it will mean that the Department of Agriculture will have 
to go all the way back and again go through rulemaking to develop new 
performance standards. We, under the amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi, are codifying a standard.
  The Senator from Mississippi, this morning, was saying the amendment 
that I offered was codifying the standard. I challenged him to show 
where that was so. It is not so. We do not codify a standard. Yet the 
amendment of the Senator from Mississippi codifies a standard. What is 
that standard shown to be? Adulteration; that is the standard.
  What does that mean? It means that USDA now can't just go into a 
plant and test for pathogen reduction and for salmonella and say they 
are not meeting the standard on salmonella--that they are failing to 
reduce pathogens. They now have to show that the meat is adulterated. 
That is what we have been doing for 70 years. A USDA inspector in a 
plant has had that authority for all of my lifetime, and for all of the 
lifetime of the Presiding Officer. They have the authority to go into a 
plant and withdraw inspection on the basis of adulteration. That is the 
old standard.
  The Senator from Mississippi would turn the clock back to where we 
were before 1996. No longer will we be able to say to parents: Your 
kids can have school lunches and not worry about pathogens because we 
have a pathogen reduction standard that is being enforced. No, we will 
have a gaping hole there because USDA will now have to show that the 
food is adulterated. It will have to show that the plant is unsanitary. 
That is what we tried to get beyond in 1996.
  The key part of the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi is that 
it codifies the adulteration standard as the essential element of 
pathogen reduction standards. Yet the Senator from Mississippi went 
after this Senator, just this morning, claiming that I was trying to 
codify a standard, which I wasn't. The judge in the Supreme Beef case 
said that for the USDA to take action, it had to show adulteration. 
That was the key part of the case. The judge said under the statutory 
law that exists, the only way the USDA can shut down an inspection line 
is if they show that it is adulterated--not that they didn't meet a 
salmonella reduction standard, not that they had pathogens in their 
food. They have to show that it is adulterated, that there are 
unsanitary conditions in the plant.
  Based on that holding, the judge said the USDA lacked the authority 
to enforce the existing salmonella standards. This amendment takes the 
holding in the Supreme Beef case, and makes it the law of the land. It 
makes the standard ``adulteration''. This amendment would make it the 
law of the land--not just in Texas but all over the country. Why would 
we want to do that? If we have to go back to ``promulgate with the 
advice,'' we will be another 2, 3, or 4 years waiting for pathogen 
reduction standards.
  What do we tell our consumers in the meantime? There is no standard. 
We go

[[Page 15573]]

right back to where we were before. What do we tell the 325,000 
Americans hospitalized every year because of foodborne illnesses? What 
do we tell the parents of kids eating school lunches? This amendment by 
the Senator from Mississippi would throw all of our meat inspection 
into a huge morass. It would basically say we are back now where we 
were 30 years--poke and sniff and have to prove that it is adulterated, 
or have to prove it is unsanitary.
  What does that mean? Salmonella can enter meat, for example, 
anywhere. It can enter it in the livestock yards, slaughterhouses, 
transportation, processing facilities. The point is not to lay blame on 
anyone. It is not to have the processor say: Our plant is clean, it is 
sanitary, and if there is salmonella there, we are not to blame, go 
blame somebody else.
  I don't care who is to blame. I want to stop it. We want to stop it. 
We want to make sure that there is a system in place so that if there 
are pathogens in meat and poultry, we find out where they are coming 
from and stop them. That is what HACCP is all about. But under the 
amendment by the Senator from Mississippi, USDA could go right back to 
Supreme Beef, and they could say: Guess what. You are not meeting the 
salmonella pathogen reduction standard we set, you have failed too many 
tests. Supreme Beef could say: We don't care what you think because you 
don't have the authority to do anything about it. Is that the kind of 
message we want to send to our consumers?
  I don't have any letters in my office, but someone told me there are 
some papers circulating that the American Meat Institute is opposed to 
my amendment and supporting the amendment by the Senator from 
Mississippi. I have worked many years for the American Meat Institute. 
I have a high regard for them. I have a lot of livestock production in 
my home State. I have slaughtering facilities and processing facilities 
in my home State. If it is true the American Meat Institute is taking 
the position that the USDA can only have a pathogen reduction standard 
based on adulteration, they are doing a disservice to my livestock 
providers, they are doing a disservice to my packers, and they are 
doing a disservice to my processors.
  Why? Because the word will be out on the street, and it will be in 
every consumer report. It will be in every newsletter that goes out 
that you can't trust the meat and poultry products that are coming from 
our processors and our packers because we no longer have a pathogen 
reduction standard.
  Let me be very clear. If the Cochran amendment is adopted, new 
rulemaking will be mandatory. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to set 
the rules because they will have to have hearings and public comment. 
They went through all that less than 6 years ago. The Cochran amendment 
means they have to go through it again.
  What happens during the next 2 to 3 years while the rulemaking is in 
effect? There will be no standards in effect, no pathogen reduction 
standards in effect. I hope Senators who are here, who are listening in 
their offices, and staffs who are listening, understand this. The 
Cochran amendment will necessitate new rulemaking. It will take a long 
time, and during that period of time, there will be no pathogen 
reduction standards enforceable by the USDA.
  If the Senator wanted to amend his amendment and just say that would 
be issued ``with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Foods, period,'' that would be acceptable.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.


                    Amendment No. 3955, as modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment to the Harkin 
amendment be modified as suggested by the Senator; that the last phrase 
be stricken--``and that are shown to be a adulterated''--so the 
amendment to the amendment reads:

       Strike ``established by the Secretary'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``promulgated with the advice of the National 
     Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 2 of the amendment: Strike ``established by the 
     Secretary'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``promulgated with 
     the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
     Microbiological Criteria for Foods.''

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi if I 
can engage in a colloquy.
  The Senator's amendment now reads ``promulgated with the advice of 
the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for 
Foods.''
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is correct. I have modified my amendment according 
to what the Senator has just said would be accepted. I assume the 
Senator will accept the amendment and we can adopt it.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think we may have an agreement.
  If I could ask the Senator from Mississippi, is it the Senator's 
intention to leave the existing standards in effect during the period 
of time that the committee would make recommendations?
  My problem is ``promulgated.'' I had two issues with the Senator's 
language. One, my problem with ``adulterated'', has been taken care of; 
the other, what does ``promulgated,'' mean remains. If USDA promulgates 
new standards and in the meantime can't enforce the existing standards, 
we are going to have a 2- or 3-year period of time where we have no 
enforceable pathogen reduction standards.
  I ask the Senator, Is it your intention that during this period of 
time we would leave the existing standards in effect?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if my amendment is accepted by the 
Senator, my amendment would amend your amendment only in one respect; 
that is, on page 2 of the amendment we would strike the words 
``established by the Secretary'' and insert the language that I quoted: 
``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Foods.''
  That is the only respect in which my amendment would modify or change 
the amendment of the Senator from Iowa. In all other respects, the 
Senator's amendment remains as he offered it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I understand that. But I am concerned about the 
words ``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee 
on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' I don't mind that. They were 
involved with the standards established in 1996.
  If it is the Senator's intention that the Department of Agriculture 
should go ahead, go back and take a look at whether or not they should 
revise those rules and those standards, I don't have any problem with 
that. That is what rulemaking is all about.
  I am worried that we will have a gap of time where we will have no 
enforceable standards. That is why I want to make sure that at least 
during the period of time when they may be revising those standards the 
existing standards remain enforceable.
  My concern, again, is if someone were to raise a question about the 
extent at which the existing standard was set with the advice of the 
committee, I want to make sure that would not bar enforcement. If we 
had a colloquy to clear that up, that standards would stay in place 
pending any changes in rulemaking, that would be fine.
  I ask if that is the Senator's intention.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield again, I think 
my amendment speaks for itself. If it is unclear, then the legislative 
history and trying to determine the intent of Congress in the use of 
the words is relevant. If the language is clear on its face and the 
meaning is clear on its face, then legislative history and intent and 
our conversation is never considered by a court.
  My view is that this is about as clear as we can say anything. That 
is, that any regulations promulgated under the authority of this act to 
which the Senator's amendment applies must be done

[[Page 15574]]

with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological 
Criteria for Foods. That is all my amendment seeks to do. That is all 
that is intended by my amendment. There is no intent to speak on any 
other subject, to affect the decisions of the Department of Agriculture 
in promulgating standards, promulgating regulations. My amendment is 
limited strictly to seeking the advice in the process of promulgating 
standards of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological 
Criteria for Foods. I don't know how I can say it, how it can be said 
any clearer than the language of the amendment says it. So the Senator 
can ask me whether I intend anything else and I can assure him I don't 
intend anything else, other than the clear and precise meaning of the 
words that are used in the amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. As the Senator and I were talking earlier, lawyers can 
argue about words and what they mean. Still, the words that are used in 
the Senator's amendment seem to indicate to me we have to go through 
rulemaking. Again, I am concerned, if that is how it is interpreted, 
then we are going to have a period of time that we may not have any 
enforceable standards. That is what I want to clarify.
  That is why I wanted to engage in the colloquy. I do not believe it 
is clear, on its face, exactly what it means.
  If it means that the standards we have now were promulgated with 
sufficient advice that we would not need new rulemaking, then that is 
okay. That is why we need some legislative history on this. That is why 
I was trying to engage in a colloquy.
  I ask the Senator from Mississippi: Does his language mean USDA will 
have to go through rulemaking again? Does this leave a gap in the 
standards? That is all I am trying to get to. Maybe if we can talk 
about it a little more, we will get to this thing. I don't know. 
Sometimes it is hard.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to assure him 
that my intent in offering the amendment is to involve the National 
Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods in the process 
by which the Secretary promulgates regulations or standards with 
respect to this act to which his amendment relates.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have no problem with that. If that is the intent, to 
say--I will repeat to make sure I do not misunderstand--that the 
Senator's intent by using the word ``promulgate'' is to say that any 
future rulemaking--I want to make sure the Senator hears my words, to 
make sure I am OK on this--that any future rulemaking done by the 
Secretary of Agriculture has to be done with the advice of the National 
Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and that 
during any rulemaking when they are seeking that advice, the present 
standards will stay in place and be enforceable, that is fine.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, my amendment 
does not address the present standards and the effect of the decision 
of the court in Texas. The amendment of the Senator deals with that. I 
am only trying to address one small aspect of this, and that is the 
involvement of this national advisory committee so the Secretary would 
have the benefit of scientific advice and evidence and information.
  Mr. HARKIN. As I said, I----
  Mr. COCHRAN. I don't think I can satisfy the Senator's curiosity 
about the legal effect of his amendment as amended by my amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. All I want to be satisfied about is that there will be 
enforceable standards in effect.
  From what I hear, I like it. I want the committee to be involved in 
advising the Secretary. If the Senator tells me that the present rules 
that have been promulgated are still enforceable during the pendency of 
that consultation, then I have no problem. But the language says USDA 
can only enforce a standard if it is ``promulgated with advice''. I am 
wondering what this means for the standards we have right now. I want 
to clear this up.
  Can the rules we have now be enforced? Or can only rules that are 
promulgated in the future be enforced with the advice of the committee? 
That is where we are hung up over these words. Words do have meaning.
  I will say again, if the interpretation is that the standards that 
are now in effect remain enforceable, and that any future rules adopted 
by the Secretary have to be done with the advice and consultation of 
the committee, I have no problem with that. Then we don't have a gap. 
And I hope that is the meaning.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an 
observation, I accommodated the Senator's interest--I tried to--by 
modifying my amendment in a way that he said would make it acceptable.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I struck the language that he suggested bothered him. He 
read that language to be ``that is shown to be adulterated.''
  He was worried about connecting proof of contaminated food with the 
ability of the Department of Agriculture to shut down a plant. And he 
thought with the addition of those words I was adding something new, a 
new hurdle that had to be crossed by the Department of Agriculture in 
implementing the standards. So I modified the amendment to remove the 
troublesome words, to assure him the crux of the amendment was to get 
the advice and the input of the experts, the scientific experts. And I 
modified it. And that is not enough. Now the Senator wants me to 
interpret the legal status of these regulations as they are affected by 
this district court decision in Texas.
  This morning I tried to put that all in context. I know I am taking 
much too much time. I discussed the reasons for my motion to table the 
Harkin amendment. I have just about gotten worn out with explaining why 
I wanted to table the Harkin amendment, why I thought it was an 
amendment that ought not be put on this Agriculture appropriations 
bill. I have said it over and over again. The Senate voted on that, and 
the motion to table was not agreed to. The vote was tied, 49-49.
  I could have let the amendment then be voted on by the Senate without 
any further amendment but, frankly, I thought it would be helpful to 
the Senate to clarify the rule problem I had with the amendment, and 
that was why we added the language as an amendment. I proposed at that 
time that amendment, the Cochran amendment to the Harkin amendment, be 
adopted by a voice vote and then the Harkin amendment be adopted by a 
voice vote.
  Think about that. We had just had a tie vote on the whole issue. Yet 
we offered to let the amendment of the Senator that almost was tabled, 
lacking one vote to be tabled, be agreed to and go on to considering 
other issues. That was not good enough either.
  We took up other business because the Senator was not prepared to 
proceed to consider the bill further. He wanted to do something else. 
We finally, now after having taken up several other amendments, get 
back to the Harkin amendment.
  He complained and pointed out what was troubling him. We tried to 
modify it. I have done everything I can think up to satisfy the Senator 
and to give him the right to have his arguments on the floor of the 
Senate, to have this issue fully considered, and to have the Senate act 
on it.
  I have gone about as far as one can go. I am hopeful the Senator will 
agree that the Cochran amendment can be adopted on a voice vote--if he 
wants to have a record vote, be my guest--and adopt the Harkin 
amendment on a voice vote, as amended by the Cochran amendment.
  Otherwise, maybe I will try to renew the motion to table. Maybe 
Senators have heard enough now so they know what the facts are about 
this amendment and that it is an attempt to reverse a decision of a 
district court in Texas that can be appealed to the court of appeals if 
the Department of Agriculture wants to appeal it and if the Department 
of Justice wants to prosecute the appeal for them. That is up to the 
Department and the lawyers at the Department of Justice. I am being 
asked to interpret and sort through

[[Page 15575]]

this and give a definitive answer about the effects when lawyers argued 
their case in Texas probably for a long and full time before a court 
there. They made a decision.
  What I am saying is, I would like to satisfy the Senator, but I do 
not think there is any way to do it. We should just move on, and let's 
vote and see how the votes turn out.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reclaim the floor. I was hoping there 
might be a reasonable outcome. As I said, the Record will show earlier 
I said there were two problems with the amendment. One was with 
adulteration, which the Senator took care of. The other was the word 
``promulgated.''
  If the Senator will further modify his amendment to say that future 
rules must be promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory 
Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, that would settle the 
issue once and for all.
  That means any future rulemaking done by USDA would have to be done 
with the advice of this committee, but that the existing rules 
meanwhile will stay in effect and be enforceable. If the Senator will 
do that, we are done.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield.


               Amendment No. 3955, As Modified, Withdrawn

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3938

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3938. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays on the amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3938.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bunning
     Murray
       
  The amendment (No. 3938) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3919

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3919.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 require the use of certain funds transferred to the 
Economic Research Service to conduct a study of reasons for the decline 
   in participation in the food stamp program and any problems that 
 households with eligible children have experienced in obtaining food 
                                stamps)

       On page 48, strike lines 12 through 16 and insert the 
     following:

     ``(7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That, of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $1,500,000 shall be transferred 
     to and merged with the appropriation for ``Food and Nutrition 
     Service, Food Program Administration'' for studies and 
     evaluations: Provided further, That not more than $500,000 of 
     the amount transferred under the preceding proviso shall be 
     available to conduct, not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, a study, based on all available 
     administrative data and onsite inspections conducted by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture of local food stamp offices in each 
     State, of (1) any problems that households with eligible 
     children have experienced in obtaining food stamps, and (2) 
     reasons for the decline in participation in the food stamp 
     program, and to report the results of the study to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, up to $6,000,000 shall be for''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to Senators at the 
beginning of my remarks, and I say to my colleague from Mississippi, I 
am going to try to be brief; I don't intend to speak for a long period 
of time. I want to summarize this amendment for Members of the Senate, 
and I want to talk about why I think this is one of the most important 
amendments I have ever brought up and why I would like to have a vote 
on it or a commitment that this stays in conference committee.
  This amendment would provide a little additional funding, $500,000, 
to the Food and Nutrition Service. This is all from within ERS. These 
are some good people. I am calling for the Food and Nutrition Service 
to be out in the field and to do some important policy evaluation for 
us about why it is that in the last half decade or so we have seen 
about a 30-percent decline in food stamp participation. There is not a 
30-percent decline in poverty.
  As a matter of fact, I am sad to say on the floor of the Senate that 
there has actually been an increase in the poverty of the poorest 
children in homes which have poverty-level income. They can evaluate 
why it is that one out of every ten households is ``food insecure,'' 
some 36 million, 37 million, and 40 percent of them children. And with 
a major safety net program for children, we can make sure that children 
are not malnourished and don't go hungry. We have seen a dramatic 
decline in participation.
  What is going on? We are the decisionmakers. We are the policymakers. 
Let's have an honest evaluation because the background to this program 
goes something like this: In the mid and late sixties--I remember I was 
a student at the University of North Carolina when these studies first 
came out. There were a series of studies and exposes. There was a CBS 
documentary--Hunger U.S.A., I think--in 1968. We saw children with 
distended bellies. We read about and heard about children who were 
suffering with scurvy and rickets. We could not believe that in America 
we had widespread malnutrition and hunger. We don't talk about this 
enough on the floor of the Senate.
  Senator Cochran from Mississippi--I am not trying to ingratiate 
myself to him--actually is one of the Members in the Senate who has 
been most focused on food and nutrition programs. It was Richard Nixon, 
a Republican President,

[[Page 15576]]

who said we have to make some changes on this issue, and whether or not 
we are going to have some kind of safety net. It won't be Heaven on 
Earth. It won't be perfect. But we will at least make sure that we try 
to get some help to these families. We are going to make sure this is a 
Federal program. Do you want to know something, colleagues? This is 
public policy that has worked because we dramatically reduced, up until 
recently, the extent of malnutrition and hunger in the country.
  What is happening now with this program? The Food and Nutrition 
Service would go out in the field. They would study the barriers faced 
by families with limited access to the Food Stamp Program. What are the 
reasons for the dramatic decline in participation in the Food Stamp 
Program? On-site review out in the field completed within 180 days a 
report and sent it to us.
  The food stamp rolls have plummeted over the last several years. 
Since April of 1996, nearly 8.6 million people have dropped off the 
food stamp rolls and more than 1 million last year alone.
  If this was because of a reduction in poverty, I wouldn't worry about 
it. But that is not what it is.
  Of the 36 million people living in food-insecure households --I hate 
that language. They live in homes where they are either going hungry or 
they are malnourished. Of 14.5 million Americans, 40 percent are 
children.
  A study by Second Harvest, the Nation's largest domestic hunger 
relief organization, found that more than one out of every three 
persons served by food banks are children.
  By the way, in almost 40 percent of the households that rely on 
emergency food assistance, there was at least one adult who was 
employed.
  You have a lot of people in our country who are working poor people. 
They are eligible for this assistance. It makes a real difference to 
them and their children. But we have seen this dramatic decline in 
participation. I think we need to know why.
  A report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors shows similar results. It 
shows there has been a dramatic increase--can you believe it--in the 
demand for emergency food assistance in major cities across the United 
States in the last 15 years.
  Can I make that clear? We have a booming economy. We are talking 
about all of this affluence. There are people who spend $10,000 or 
$15,000 on one vacation, and the Conference of Mayors says we are 
seeing a dramatic demand in the need for emergency food assistance.
  Catholic Charities, the Nation's largest private human service, 
reported providing emergency food services to more than 5.6 million, 
more than 1 million of whom were children.
  When we are talking about food pantries, when we are talking about 
Catholic Charities, when we are talking about Second Harvest, when we 
are talking about all of these relief organizations saying there has 
been this increase in demand and saying that many of the citizens they 
help are children, something is wrong. Something is wrong with our 
priorities. No citizen in America should be hungry today. No child 
should be hungry.
  I don't have the statistics. But I am guessing. It is just intuition. 
It is what I have seen with my own eyes. There are also significant 
numbers of elderly people who are malnourished.
  The Food Research and Action Center, which I believe has done the 
very best work in this area, reports that more than 1.2 million people 
left the food stamp rolls between October 1998 and October 1999. Again, 
8.6 million people have left the Food Stamp Program since April of 
1996.
  Senators, here is the statistic that is jarring. According to the 
USDA, more than one-third of those who are eligible for the Food Stamp 
Program are not receiving benefits. We had a dramatic decline of about 
a 30-percent drop over the last 4 years, and USDA itself comes out and 
says that one-third of those who are eligible are not receiving any 
benefits at all.
  A report released by the National Campaign for Jobs and Income 
Supports, another really good organization and good coalition, found 
that the number of poor people receiving food stamps has declined by 37 
percent--more than 10 million people since 1994--although the number of 
people living in poverty has not declined anywhere close to the same 
rate.
  In 1995, for every 100 poor people in the country, 71 were using food 
stamps. In 1998, for every 100 poor people, only 54 were using food 
stamps.
  A General Accounting Office report recently released found that 
``food stamp participation has dropped faster than related economic 
indicators would predict.'' An Urban Institute report found that 
``about two-thirds of the families who left the Food Stamp Program were 
still eligible for food stamps.''
  A July 1999 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by 
Mathematica Policy Research, Incorporated, identified lack of client 
information as a barrier to participation.
  In other words, people are not being told that they are eligible. 
They are not being told that they can help their children by 
participating in this food nutrition program.
  Food stamps can mean the difference between whether or not the child 
has an adequate diet. Food stamps can make a difference between whether 
or not a child goes hungry. Food stamps can make a difference as to 
whether or not little children ages 1, 2 and 3 get adequate nutrition 
for the development of their brain. Food stamps can make a difference 
in terms of whether or not a child goes to school with an empty stomach 
and not able to learn. Food stamps can make a difference as to whether 
or not a child can do well in school and, therefore, well in life.
  I am speaking with some indignation. I know that we don't have a lot 
of debate on these issues. But this amendment is relevant to this bill. 
Food stamps can determine whether or not a child is able to concentrate 
and able to bond with other children, and whether a child can do well 
on these standardized tests that we are giving.
  We are given all these standardized tests the kids have to pass--if 
they fail, they are held back as young as age 8--but we have not made 
sure that children who could benefit from food nutrition programs so 
they do not go hungry, so they are not malnourished, are able to 
benefit.
  I just can't believe that during a thriving stock market, with record 
economic performance, with record affluence, with record wealth, with 
record surpluses, we have seen over the last half a decade a 33-percent 
or more decline in food stamp participation, and we have today in the 
United States of America 37 million Americans who are ``food 
insecure,'' 40 percent of them children.
  I told my friend, Senator Cochran, I would be relatively brief. I 
could go on and on. About a year ago, I brought this amendment to the 
floor. The Senator from Mississippi, who cares about these issues, 
accepted the amendment. It was knocked out in conference committee. It 
makes me furious. What in the world is the matter with the Congress 
that we are not even willing to let the Food and Nutrition Service make 
a policy evaluation? Why it is, with the most important safety net 
program for children in America to make sure they are not malnourished 
and make sure they do not go hungry, we are not even willing to support 
that?
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I hope there will be a strong vote for this amendment. 
I hope and I pray that we can keep this in conference because we should 
do this evaluation; we should get a report; we should know what is 
going on. This is important. This is all about whether our citizens, 
people in the country, are malnourished or not, whether they go hungry 
or not, whether children have a chance or not, whether we provide the 
help that elderly people need. We are not doing a good job. Something 
is wrong.
  I think if we get the study done--I don't know why we can't--then we 
will no longer be in a position of not knowing or not wanting to know 
and we will take some action.

[[Page 15577]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of the 
Senator from Minnesota and bringing this issue to the attention of the 
Senate, frankly. More and more in the last few years, unemployment 
rates have been coming down. The economy is strong. Everybody knows 
that.
  And I kept asking, why aren't the participation rates in food stamps 
and other nutrition programs coming down? For a little while, they were 
going up, too. We had the number of people wanting work, finding work, 
going up. Incomes were going up. In my State of Mississippi, we saw 
income levels reaching new highs, but the food stamp participation was 
still going up.
  Pretty soon, though, that began to change and the food stamp 
participation rates began coming down. I thought this was an indication 
that people did not need as much nutrition assistance from these 
Federal programs as they did in the past. We hadn't changed in the last 
few years any of the eligibility or participation in the program. We 
did so back in the welfare reform days, and we all remember that 
process. There was a big push to do away with the Food Stamp Program. 
Some in the Senate pushed very hard to turn the program over to the 
States. Others resisted it. As it came out, it was preserved as a 
Federal program. It would be administered by the States, as in the 
past. By and large, it continued to exist without too many changes.
  The Senator is suggesting that because there continue to be dropoffs, 
reductions in the participation, something is wrong and we need to find 
out what it is. If there is something wrong, we need to be aware of it. 
I agree with the Senator. If the program is being administered in a way 
that denies those who are eligible under the law for benefits, we need 
to know about it. We need to try to make sure that those who need 
assistance and who are eligible for assistance get the assistance to 
which they are entitled and that there are funds here that will make 
those program benefits available to every eligible person in our 
country. That is our goal. That is my goal. That is my attitude. That 
is my view about this subject.
  I support the Senator's effort to have a study, and I will work in 
conference to see that funds are made available to do that study. I 
know the Food and Nutrition Service has been working on that issue. He 
is suggesting, as I understand the amendment, the Economic Research 
Service use some of the funds available to it to conduct a study, as 
well.
  I am prepared to take the matter to conference and to do as well as 
we can in conference with the House on this issue and the language the 
Senator has. I am told by my staff there are some suggested 
improvements--and I hope the Senator will agree they are improvements 
in the language of the amendment--that will strengthen the amendment in 
conference, and, if so, that the Senator will understand and be 
supportive of our efforts to see that the study achieves the goals the 
Senator intends.
  One aside: When the Senator made the point about amendments adopted 
here that are not accepted in conference, and it makes him furious, I 
was reminded of a story.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Before my colleague goes further, I was referring to 
this specific topic.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I see.
  I am reminded of a story my colleague from Mississippi, with whom I 
served in the body for 10 years before he retired--Senator John 
Stennis--told about a conference; I have forgotten which committee, but 
it was appropriations. He was chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations at the time he retired from the Senate.
  An amendment had been adopted in the Senate, and it was dropped in 
conference. The Senator who was managing the conference was explaining 
the provisions of the bill and what had been agreed to by the House and 
what had been rejected by the House. The author of an amendment got up 
and asked: Why wasn't my amendment accepted by the House? The manager 
said: We discussed it fully, and there was a lot of discussion, but it 
was not accepted by the House. He said: I want to know why; what did 
they say? The manager said: They didn't say.
  It is an indication that sometimes the House rejects an amendment. 
They don't feel obliged to tell you why they rejected it. They just 
say: We are not going to accept it. I have seen that happen. I have 
seen the chairman of the full committee on the Senate Appropriations 
Committee have to personally go to a conference and almost beg the 
conferees on the part of the House to accommodate an interest in his 
State that he thought deserved the support of the conference.
  It was almost a humiliating experience. I will never forget it. But 
it was an illustration of the fact that the other body takes their 
prerogatives very seriously, particularly on appropriations. I am 
reminded every year how difficult it is to get our way in conference in 
negotiations with the House. It is a tough challenge. Ultimately it 
gets the work out, but in the process there are Senate provisions that 
are dropped in conference, that are not agreed to by the House, in 
spite of the very best efforts that are made by the Senate to have 
their way in those negotiations.
  All I can say in respect to the Senator's insistence that this 
amendment be kept in conference is, we will do our best.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Wellstone's 
amendment. We need to do all we can to understand why food stamp 
participation has declined so sharply. We know that poverty among 
working families is growing, not declining, even in this time of 
prosperity, and we need to find better answers to this problem.
  The Conference Board is a global business membership organization 
that has enabled senior executives to exchange ideas on business policy 
and practices for nearly a century. The most recent Conference Board 
study is entitled ``Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats? America's Full-
Time Working Poor Reap Limited Gains in the New Economy.'' The 
conclusions of this pro-business group are surprising. The Conference 
Board found that the number of full-time workers classified as poor 
increased between 1997 and 1998, the last year for which data is 
available. And despite the strongest economic growth in three decades, 
the poverty rate among full-time workers is higher now than it was 
during the last recession.
  The Congressional General Accounting Office also studied this issue 
of declining food stamp participation, and it found that food stamp 
participation is declining much more rapidly than poverty.
  The obvious result is that millions more Americans, including 
children and working families, are going without adequate nutrition 
today than before the welfare reform law was enacted.
  In Massachusetts, Project Bread operates a statewide hunger hotline, 
where operators respond to 2,300 requests for referrals each month. 
Last month, a mother from Worcester called. She had just been released 
from the hospital after the birth of her fifth baby. Doctors had 
ordered her to stop working 3 months ago, due to complications with her 
pregnancy. Her husband drives a bus, and their single salary was barely 
enough for the family to get by. When she called the hotline, there was 
no money and no food in the house, and hotline workers characterized 
her situation as desperate.
  In many other communities, the nation's mayors have been distressed 
by the sudden sharp increases in requests for emergency food from 
working families. Too many of those in need are being turned away, 
because the resources are so inadequate. We clearly need a better 
understanding of why this alarming level of hunger persists in our 
record-breaking economy.
  We need this additional information as soon as possible. We must 
accurately determine why food stamp participation has declined. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to deal more effectively with 
this tragic problem of hunger.

[[Page 15578]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                    Amendment No. 3919, As Modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent I 
may send a technical correction to the desk. A sentence was written on 
the wrong line. I ask unanimous consent I modify the amendment. This is 
technical.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 9, line 7, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert 
     $1,500,000''.
       On line 10 after ``tions'' insert: ``Provided further, That 
     not more than $500,000 of the amount transferred under the 
     preceding proviso shall be available to conduct, not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
     study, based on all available administrative data and onsite 
     inspections conducted by the Secretary of Agriculture of 
     local food stamp offices in each State, of (1) any problems 
     that households with eligible children have experienced in 
     obtaining food stamps, and (2) reasons for the decline in 
     participation in the food stamp program, and to report the 
     results of the study to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Mississippi 
that I accept what he said in very good faith about the conference 
committee, and if he can, in his wisdom and experience, strengthen this 
amendment, I am all for that. When he tells me he will do everything he 
can to advocate for this amendment, I accept his word. There is no 
question about it.
  The second point I wish to make is just to clarify, or make the 
Record clear, that my indignation is not so much that ``my'' amendment 
was taken out in conference committee. I don't really care about it 
being my amendment. What bothers me, what troubles me, I say to Senator 
Cochran, is that--and I cited about seven or eight different studies, 
good studies done by good people--we do have before us a very important 
challenge.
  We have seen this dramatic decline. We know how important this 
program can be. We are getting reports that there are a lot of families 
eligible who are not participating. We are getting the reports from all 
the religious communities that the use of the food shelves are going 
up. We are getting reports from teachers in schools telling us kids are 
coming to school malnourished.
  So I am saying I find it a little hard to understand how in 
conference last year certain folks, whoever they were, just took this 
out. They were not interested in knowing. I think we ought to care 
about this. I insist we do. I know the Senator from Mississippi does.
  I think we will get a strong vote in the Senate and that will be 
good. The Senate will be strongly on record and I hope we can carry 
this in conference. I thank the Senator for his support. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3919, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--6

     Helms
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Kerry
     Murray
  The amendment (No. 3919), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the status of 
the Record appropriate for the calling of another amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is appropriate.


                           Amendment No. 3958

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3958 on behalf of 
Senator Kohl, Senator Santorum, Senator Moynihan, Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts, Senator Biden, Senator Hutchison of Texas, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Schumer, Senator Warner, and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Kohl, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Biden, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3958.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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 correct an unintended termination of the authority of 
Amtrak to lease motor vehicles from the General Services Administration 
           that results from previously enacted legislation)

       At the end of chapter 6 of title II of division B, add the 
     following:
       Sec. 2607. Amtrak is authorized to obtain services from the 
     Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator is 
     authorized to provide services to Amtrak, under sections 
     201(b) and 211(b) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481(b) and 491(b)) for fiscal 
     year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter until the fiscal 
     year that Amtrak operates without Federal operating grant 
     funds appropriated for its benefit, as required by sections 
     24101(d) and 24104(a) of title 49, United States Code.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would restore Amtrak's 
eligibility to continue leasing vehicles from the General Services 
Administration's Interagency Fleet Management System.
  The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 inadvertently 
removed this eligibility. By way of further explanation, in the Amtrak 
Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Amtrak was removed from the list 
of ``mixed ownership and government corporations.''
  An inadvertent and unintended consequence of this change was brought 
to Amtrak's attention earlier this spring. The Federal Railroad 
Administration questioned Amtrak's eligibility to continue leasing 
automobiles from the General Services Administration's Interagency 
Fleet Management System. The Federal Railroad Administration and 
General Services Administration agreed that Amtrak was no longer 
eligible.
  As a result of this inadvertent change, there is a fleet of some 
1,650 vehicles for which Amtrak currently pays $10 million to lease 
through the General Services Administration. If Amtrak is forced to 
lease its vehicles privately, it will cost a total of $25 million 
annually.
  The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was intended to allow Amtrak 
to transition to operating self-sufficiency.
  This legislation was not intended to put new financial burdens on the 
corporation, which is in a transition to operating self-sufficiency. 
This problem

[[Page 15579]]

was called to my attention yesterday by Governor Tommy Thompson, who is 
Chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors. The operation for Amtrak has 
been in high gear to operate like a business in its goal to achieve 
operational self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2003. The strategy that 
Governor Thompson and others have articulated, as provided to me, 
involves, one, developing high-speed rail corridors; two, building a 
market-based rail network; three, forging partnerships with State and 
local authorities and large commercial clients; and four, offering a 
new service guarantee, which is unparalleled in the transportation 
industry.
  These strategies are already producing very considerable results. 
Amtrak's annual revenues reached a record of $1.84 billion in fiscal 
year 1999. Just over 21 million passengers traveled on Amtrak last 
year, for a third consecutive year of ridership growth. Overall 
ridership in the last 5 months is up 8 percent over the same period of 
last year. Ridership on the high-speed regional service corridor is up 
nearly 40 percent over the trains that were replaced.
  Further information provided to me is that the development of more 
commercial partnerships has boosted mail and express revenue by 35 
percent in this calendar year. Amtrak's net worth growth strategy, 
introduced in February, will expand passenger rail service to 21 
States, based on a comprehensive economic analysis of the national rail 
system and potential market opportunities. The national growth strategy 
is expected to add as much as $229 million of revenue by the year 2003. 
New partnerships have been forged with Motorola, Dobbs, and Hertz 
Corporation, among others. Amtrak's new web site for ticketing has been 
named one of the 100 most popular bookmark sites on the Internet. For 
fiscal year 2000, sales are up 113 percent over the same period last 
year.
  Since Amtrak's announcement of its service guarantee, it has recorded 
a satisfactory rate of 99.97 percent. These results point to the 
successful turnabout Amtrak is making in its efforts to achieve 
operational self-sufficiency. A goal has been set for Amtrak, and 
Amtrak is taking the proper steps to achieve that self-sufficiency. My 
suggestion to the Senate is that we not undermine the corporation by 
forcing it to swallow some $15 million in unintended costs, while 
losing its GSA eligibility for the remainder of the glidepath.
  The General Services Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, 
and Amtrak agreed that the legislation referred to contained an 
unintended consequence and should be rectified. Amtrak must return all 
1,650 vehicles by October 1 of this year, under the existing law. This 
provision puts an undue and unwarranted burden upon the General 
Services Administration, which does not want many of these specialized 
vehicles back in their inventory because they have nobody else who 
would lease them, so it would be a loss to GSA, as well.
  This amendment would restore Amtrak's eligibility to continue leasing 
vehicles from the General Services Administration's Interagency 
Management Fleet. I am advised by staff, who have consulted with the 
staff of the General Services Administration, that both GSA and the 
Federal Railroad Administration, as well as Amtrak, support this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, it would be preferable, candidly, not to put this 
amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill. I have consulted with 
the Parliamentarian, and there is a defense of germaneness, which is an 
answer to a challenge on grounds that this is legislation on an 
appropriations bill. The provisions of H.R. 4461 that we are currently 
considering, on page 5, line 9, provides the following under 
``Payments, Including Transfers of Funds'':

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of the General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 
     486, for programs and activities of the Department which are 
     included in this Act, and for the operation, maintenance, 
     improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings, 
     $150,343,000, to remain available until expended.

  As I say, I am advised by the Parliamentarian that this language is 
sufficient to establish germaneness, and germaneness is a defense for 
challenging this amendment as legislation on an appropriations bill.
  There is an obvious concern raised here about whether Amtrak should 
be able to have the benefit of this leasing arrangement because Amtrak 
is supposed to be self-sufficient, some might say. The reality is that 
Amtrak is under a transition period to attain self-sufficiency. We are 
looking at an additional 2-year window here. I suggest that the savings 
of $15 million to Amtrak really would not be at the expense of the 
Federal Government. These are savings which, if the leasing were not 
possible, and the GSA has nobody to lease it to, is actually a net gain 
for the Federal Government. While Amtrak would have to pay $25 million 
annually instead of $10 million to GSA, if GSA doesn't have anybody to 
lease these vehicles to, which is what has been represented to me, it 
ends up that the Federal Government loses $10 million, which it would 
get from these leases. So it is a win-win situation for the Federal 
Government to have the $10 million in lease payments, and it saves 
Amtrak some $15 million.
  What we really need to do is, obviously, put Amtrak back on its feet. 
In the course of just a few minutes today, I was able to find 10 
cosponsors of this legislation. If we had more time to survey the 
Senate, I think we would find many more Senators. I don't think this is 
necessary as a disclosure of interest, but I have an interest in 
Amtrak, besides being a Senator, in wanting Amtrak to succeed. I ride 
Amtrak every day. It is really an enviable position to be in, whereas 
some of my colleagues have to fight airplane schedules. Some of us can 
ride the metroliner, which leaves on the hour. I can tell you that the 
metroliner is good service, and the other service is excellent as well. 
Those trains are filled and they are money-makers. The new Acela train 
is about to be established, which will get from Washington to 
Philadelphia even faster.
  Amtrak has come out with a new guarantee and it is moving ahead. 
There is no reason, it seems to me, to let this technicality stand, 
which would cost Amtrak $15 million and probably cost GSA $10 million 
if, as expected, it is unable to lease out all of these vehicles, which 
would be returned on October 1 of this year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in objection to the amendment. 
Bismarck said there are two things you never want to see made, and that 
is laws and sausages. This really is another one of these wonderful 
sausages.
  If a government student from a college or high school or university 
from around the country came here and was sitting in the galleries 
observing this, and someone told them we are now addressing the 
agricultural appropriations bill, one would then assume that it has to 
do with agriculture and farmers, the agricultural section of this 
country, and that it would probably have some very worthy aspects of 
it.
  Then this student observes the Senator from Pennsylvania stand up and 
say: We are going to get the GSA to lease automobiles for Amtrak. 
Excuse me? That is a railroad.
  For the benefit of those students who observe these things, I would 
like to tell you how we got here.
  Amtrak first came to my committee--which happens to be, although it 
is routinely ignored lately, the authorizing committee particularly as 
we go through the appropriations process. They came to the Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation Committee and said: We would like to have 
this done--although interestingly stated by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania--because basically they do not want to have to pay to 
lease automobiles to have their operations go forward. They wanted us 
to put it in as part of the National Transportation Safety Board 
reauthorization.
  After examining their proposal, and knowing that the whole object of 
the reform of Amtrak was to make them

[[Page 15580]]

independent of the Federal Government, and now they want to take 
advantage of a situation that only governmental organizations can take 
care of --that is, General Services Administration leasing--we said no.
  They have some pretty highly paid lobbyists around town. They are 
pretty influential. They went to the government oversight committee, to 
Senator Thompson, and to his staff. They tried to float it by them 
because Senator Thompson's Committee on Governmental Affairs has 
oversight of the General Services Administration.
  Senator Thompson, his staff, and his committee rejected it out of 
hand--again because a nongovernment organization should not have access 
to the facilities and capabilities that a governmental organization 
does. That was rejected.
  The Amtrak lobbyists were flailing around town. Senator Thompson 
honored me with a phone call. He said: How do you explain the fact that 
the whole effort of the Amtrak Reform Accountability Act, Public Law 
104-34, was intended to make Amtrak independent of the Federal 
Government--which, by the way, is not too important, to revisit 
history.
  In 1971, Amtrak was formed for only 2 years, I say to my colleagues, 
and then to be completely independent. Of course, after being at the 
Government trough since 1971, we finally decided that they had just 
about enough when we enacted the Amtrak Reform Accountability Act.
  They finally found a willing servant and messenger in the Senator 
from Pennsylvania, and I congratulate him. So here we are with an 
amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill that has to do with 
Amtrak, which, as the Senator from Pennsylvania alluded to, he rides 
regularly. I am sure he is an avid supporter of it. But this is $15 
million. Actually, they came to us the first time and said it was a $4 
million deal. It has increased somehow magically in the last 6 weeks or 
so to $15 million. I guess that dramatized the gravity of their 
situation.
  I say to my government student who is observing this, I can tell you 
that the way we ended up with this particular sausage is that the 
Amtrak lobbyists with all of their influence could not get what they 
wanted through the committee of oversight. They couldn't get what we 
wanted through another committee of oversight; staff and those who had 
jurisdiction rejected this idiotic proposal out of hand. So now we have 
an amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  The supporters of this amendment allege its purpose is to correct an 
unintended--in the words of the Senator from Pennsylvania, unintended 
and unintentional--consequence of legislation enacted in 1997, the 
Amtrak Reform Accountability Act. Not so. Not so. The whole purpose of 
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, of which I was a 
part, was to divorce Amtrak from the Federal Government and the largess 
and the perks and other good deals that can be had being a part of the 
Federal Government.
  Have no doubt, my friends, coming from a Senator who was intimately 
involved in the act, there was no unintended consequence. There was no 
inadvertency associated with it. This is simply an attempt on the part 
of Amtrak to save themselves $4 million, or $15 million, whatever it 
is.
  One of the main purposes of the act is to direct Amtrak to run more 
as a real for-profit business. There are other organizations, such as 
Fannie Mae, that are in exactly the same status as Amtrak. Fannie Mae 
doesn't get GSA leasing of their cars. Freddie Mac doesn't get GSA 
leasing of their cars. But we are going to do it for Amtrak.
  I guarantee you, my friends, we are going to have a hearing in 
September, I say to my colleagues, on this great reform, and all of 
this success which the Senator from Pennsylvania just trumpeted, you 
are going to find out it is not true. As far as I know, Amtrak is going 
to be feeding from the public trough for as long as any Member of this 
body is alive.
  We just had a Member of the advisory committee resign in disgust and 
anger over what has transpired since this act was passed in 1997.
  I don't expect to win. I don't expect to win this amendment. But I am 
going to make the American people aware of this bizarre situation where 
we have a railroad formed in 1971, and the commitment at that time was 
that railroad would be Government supported for 2 years. Count them: 
One, two. Since 1971, in the intervening 29 years, the billions and 
billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that have been expended on 
Amtrak stagger the imagination. Someday, somebody will write a very 
interesting treatise. In fact, several have already been written.
  In regard to the arguments of ``unintended consequences,'' let me 
assure my colleagues we have experienced a slew of unintended 
consequences since the reform law was enacted--a slew of unintended 
consequences. Let me mention a couple.
  When we all agreed to remove the former board of directors so Amtrak 
would have a clean slate with new leadership and fresh ideas, we never 
thought the board members serving at the time of enactment would then 
be appointed to the new reform board. But that is what happened.
  When we called for the creation of an 11-member Amtrak reform council 
and were specific about membership criteria and eligibility, we never 
expected the one representative of the rail industry to be a sitting 
mayor not affiliated with the industry at all. But that is what 
occurred, my friends--laws and sausages.
  When we authorized substantial capital and operating funds for the 
duration of the 5-year bill, we never expected the administration to 
request only about half of the authorized funding. But that is what 
occurred, despite the nonstop rhetoric about the administration's 
support for Amtrak.
  When we were all convinced that Amtrak would utilize the $2.2 billion 
``tax refund''--one of the more interesting sausages that were 
fashioned here in the Senate; there was a $2.2 billion tax refund on 
taxes that was never paid, one of the more interesting ones I have seen 
here--we were all convinced that Amtrak would utilize the $2.2 billion 
``tax refund'' released by enactment of the reform legislation for high 
return capital investments--the commitment of the $2.2 billion for high 
return capital investments. We didn't expect Amtrak to use that money 
to pay for gym membership, movie tickets, and for some of its labor 
force. But that is what occurred.
  I can understand Amtrak's desire to undo parts of the 1997 law it no 
longer likes. I am certain a number of Members would like to change 
certain things about the law here and there, particularly as we are 
getting closer to the operational self-sufficiency deadline in 2 years.
  By the way, there is no outside expert who believes we will reach 
that operational self-sufficiency deadline, which we will carefully 
examine as the committee of oversight, as the committee that is 
responsible for the authorizing--not the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee. We will examine it. But I believe an agreement is an 
agreement. And this bill was adopted unanimously.
  I think Amtrak should be relieved we are not instead requiring it to 
repay the Treasury for the money it saved by participating illegally in 
the program for nearly 3 years. Amtrak has been participating in this 
program, as judged by outside observers, illegally. It should have been 
halted.
  It is true not all Members share the same perspective concerning the 
obligation imposed upon the American taxpayers to fund Amtrak for its 
29 years of subsidization, even though Amtrak was to have been free of 
all Federal assistance 2 years after it was established in 1971. 
However, we did work together and support enactment of reform 
legislation with the intent to give Amtrak the tools it said it needed 
to become operationally self-sufficient.
  I have not acted to alter the agreement reached as part of the reform 
legislation, and I find it a breech of that agreement that Amtrak and 
others are routinely seeking changes through the appropriations process 
to allow it to do things not approved by the authorizing committee of 
jurisdiction. Be assured,

[[Page 15581]]

I say to my colleagues now, we have a little dust up here. But when 
Amtrak tries to obtain a $10 billion funding scheme, there is going to 
be a big fight about that one, my friends. I know it is coming. It 
hasn't fulfilled the first and quite substantial statutory obligation 
to operate free of taxpayer expense.
  Amtrak asked for legislation that allowed it to operate more as a 
private business, and we enacted such legislation. As other former 
Government-controlled agencies have moved toward privatization, they 
didn't enjoy the freedom to pick and choose what governmental support 
programs they could use to their advantage. When Congress set up other 
corporations such as Freddie Mac, COMSAT, and Fannie Mae, they did not 
and do not participate in GSA leasing. The fact is, nongovernmental 
entities do not participate in the GSA vehicle leasing program. Amtrak 
can't have it both ways, although they probably will.
  Finally, I find it very strange that since this issue was brought to 
my attention in March, Amtrak has said the GSA leasing eligibility 
saves $4 million annually--probably a lot of money to a company that 
lost more than $900 million last year; $900 million was all they lost 
last year. Yet now that an amendment is being offered on the floor, 
Amtrak has raised the bar and this week Amtrak is telling me the 
provision would save some $15 million annually. Which of Amtrak's 
numbers should we believe? At a minimum, the authorizing committee 
should have an opportunity to explore this new figure before we are 
asked to adopt any changes in existing law.
  As I said, we will be having a hearing on Amtrak, as is our 
responsibility as the authorizing committee, in early September to 
carefully explore this and many other critical issues. Until this issue 
has been looked at by the committee of jurisdiction, I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  We find ourselves, a week before leaving, with an amendment that was 
first sought to be addressed by the committee of authorization, the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. We refused to do so 
because it was clearly not in keeping with the law. Then they went to 
another committee of authorization. They wouldn't do it. So now what 
does the Senator from Pennsylvania do? Something to do with Amtrak, a 
train, is on the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  Another example of laws and sausages. To all those students of 
government who may be watching and observing this bizarre process, my 
friends, it is an argument for reform of the way we do business in this 
body. The authorizing committees are becoming more and more irrelevant 
as each legislative day goes by. I am close to the point where we 
either do away with the Appropriations Committee or we do away with the 
authorizing committees. To come on this floor and have a clear 
legislative change, even though it may not meet the exact parameters of 
germaneness in rule XVI, and make a clear elective change on a bill 
that has nothing to do, first of all as an appropriations bill, and 
second of all has no relation to Amtrak, I find offensive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Specter 
amendment. I hope it will prevail for reasons that I don't think have 
been discussed thus far.
  One thing that we are not talking about is whether or not, since 
legislation was passed some time ago that might be more restrictive to 
Amtrak, the conditions have changed. One need not be a transportation 
engineer to know you can't get off the ground at airports. I waited the 
other day 5 hours for a flight to go to New Jersey from here. We were 
on the ground 5 hours.
  There are almost no airports of any size that aren't constantly late. 
There aren't places that one can travel by car or by bus that you can 
get where you want to be in a reliable period of time. We saw the front 
page news on the Washington Post 2 days ago about the disappearance of 
mountaintops, surrounded by smog, because the country is being 
overwhelmed by transportation and environmental problems. Conditions 
have changed.
  When we want to make comparisons between Amtrak and private 
businesses, we have to recognize there is no place in this world, no 
place, where there isn't a subsidy provided for rail service so people 
can travel from place to place--such as the subsidy we offer when we 
build airports and we provide and charge the passengers a tax to ride 
in an airplane. We have a passenger facility charge. Or that if one 
wants to buy gas at a gas station, we have a Federal tax; we have State 
taxes. Amtrak doesn't have that ability. Amtrak is the poor stepchild. 
It offers a service to lots and lots of people who can't find any 
alternative that is satisfactory or available to them.
  I don't like spending money. I happen to come from a strong business 
background. I know the difference between business and government. 
Amtrak is not a business like other businesses. It requires help. What 
we said in the commitment that was made for Amtrak was that we would 
not require that they meet operating needs out of the fare box. That is 
what we said would happen. Capital costs--and those are the things we 
are talking about--are part of the operating budget. We are forced at 
times to use operating funds for capital costs. The thing is all 
backwards. We are similiar to a Third World country in a process that 
has us asking passenger railroads to do things that no other country 
does.
  Germany has advanced their transportation systems, investing $10 
billion a year in developing rapid rail transportation. In France, you 
can travel from Brussels to Paris in an hour and 25 minutes; the 
distance is 200 miles. That is what we ought to be talking about.
  Take the pressure out of the skies. There is no more room for 
airplanes in the skies. There is no latitude. We can build more 
airplanes but you still won't be able to fly the planes. We have broken 
the rules. We expanded the number of slots at Reagan National because 
of requests from some of the people here, Senators who wanted to have 
particular access. Break the rules. Give us access. What do we care 
about the rules, about the number of flights that can come in and go, 
from whatever distances. Break the rules.
  We are not talking about breaking the rules. We are talking about 
extending an opportunity for many in the American public to be able to 
travel and get to their destinations on time with a degree of comfort 
that permits them to arrive at their destination and be able to conduct 
their business or see their families or get to school or whatever else 
they have to do.
  It is a fairly simple equation. I hope we will support the Specter 
amendment.
  I think what it does do is it says to people who need passageway, who 
need an opportunity to get from place to place that is not otherwise 
ordinarily available, and that is to permit these leases to be 
supported by GSA. To save Amtrak? No, not to save Amtrak; to save the 
passengers, to save the rail riders $15 million a year. That is what we 
are talking about saving.
  Amtrak is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we can transport 
the people who inhabit this country in a way that is reasonable without 
continuing to foul the air or delay them interminably.
  I hope we can conclude this vote and get the issue resolved. I do not 
like disagreeing with the chairman of the Commerce Committee. They have 
jurisdiction. But in this case I happen to think the perspective is 
wrong; that there is not recognition of what our country's needs are. 
They have changed so radically in the past few years. Look at airline 
passenger traffic. See how much it has grown. See how much more the 
highways are used now than only a few short years ago. The situation 
has changed. Are we going to continue to take an attitude that it 
doesn't matter what we are doing to the environment; it doesn't matter 
how late the airplanes are; it doesn't matter how costly rides are; 
regardless of that, we are not going to permit it to happen?

[[Page 15582]]

  I hope we will extend this extra opportunity for Amtrak and for its 
passengers to continue to operate and get us to the point, when we get 
high-speed rail in there, we can meet our operating costs and we can 
provide the kinds of service one would expect in a country such as 
ours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Pennsylvania. As you 
know, this amendment will allow Amtrak to continue leasing vehicles 
from GSA through 2003. We are all eager to see Amtrak continue 
progressing toward self-sufficiency. Without this amendment, we will be 
jeopardizing their ability to achieve that goal.
  In my own State, half a million people from Wisconsin ride Amtrak 
every year. It is very important not only to Wisconsin but to every 
State that Amtrak continue its progress toward viability. We must 
continue to allow Amtrak to transition to self-sufficiency by 2003.
  This amendment is very crucial to that effort. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I welcome an opportunity to present these 
issues to students. Anyone in the balcony observing this debate, 
students, and as the Senator from Arizona alludes to students, perhaps 
a more elite audience, wanting to know the theory, the philosophy, the 
approach, the ethics of the proposition, I welcome addressing students 
on this subject as I spend a good bit of my time addressing high 
schools, colleges, junior high schools, and even grade schools taking 
the message to the students about what government ought to be doing.
  It is a fairly common reference--not too humorous anymore--to 
analogize making sausage to the making of legislation. But the making 
of legislation is a very complicated matter. It has to take into 
account the accommodation of 260 million Americans and many contrary 
issues and many contrary differences.
  When the argument is raised about this is a matter turned down by the 
authorizing committee, the Commerce Committee, and turned down by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee--they are not the last word. The 
chairman of the Commerce Committee does not have the last word. He may 
have it as the Commerce Committee is organized, directed, and run. And 
the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee may have the last 
word as to how that committee is run. But the Senate has the last word.
  There are 100 of us and each Senator has rights under the rules of 
the Senate. When this Senator offers an amendment, this Senator is 
offering an amendment within his rights. Even if the full Commerce 
Committee backs the chairman, or even if the full Governmental Affairs 
Committee backs the chairman, those committees are not the last word. 
The last word is the Senate, the 100 Members who constitute the Senate.
  In offering this amendment, this Senator is functioning within the 
rules. When the Senator from Arizona says that this amendment has 
nothing to do with agriculture and he finds the amendment offensive, I 
take a little offense at that. I set forth the germaneness, which 
entitles this amendment to be offered on this bill.
  It is not an unusual occurrence in the Senate to offer legislation on 
an appropriations bill. That rule has been breached so often that it is 
hardly referenced anymore. We are trying to come back to a standard of 
not legislating on an appropriations bill, but the rules of the Senate 
govern that, and I cited the provisions of the bill we are considering 
from the House of Representatives which makes this germane.
  That is the advice I received from the Parliamentarian. That is not 
my own peculiar, personal opinion. If someone wants to challenge the 
amendment, there are ways to do so if someone says this violates the 
rules. But I do not think it does, and the Parliamentarian does not 
think it does.
  When there are references to illegal activities by Amtrak, if there 
are illegal activities, let's refer it to the Department of Justice. 
Some might say a reference to the Department of Justice doesn't do much 
good in the United States of America today, and I would not want to 
argue that point too vociferously, but let's give them a chance. Has it 
been referred to the Department of Justice?
  I attended a hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation where Governor Thompson appeared last year. But we met 
yesterday on another matter. He called this issue to my attention.
  This is not exactly my purview, to take up this issue. It doesn't 
come within any of my committee responsibilities. But no high-priced 
lobbyist came to me to talk about this issue, a high-priced lobbyist 
who might be fundraising for me. Nobody came to talk to me about it. In 
fact, not even a low-priced lobbyist came to me to talk about it. But 
Governor Thompson, a very distinguished American and very distinguished 
public servant, did. I told him I was concerned about it. Before the 
afternoon, I had a flood of telephone calls from Amtrak, asking me to 
look into it, to check it out.
  This morning I called Senator Kohl who had been working on the 
matter. Then I started to canvas a few Senators and got 10 cosponsors 
very promptly. Senator Jeffords--I ask unanimous consent he be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. There is a reference here to ``idiotic.'' I take more 
than umbrage at that, and would cite rule XIX which says:

       No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any 
     form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators 
     any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

  I can't represent whether I was called an idiot, or whether I was 
said to have offered an idiotic amendment. But either way, offering an 
idiotic amendment is not becoming conduct for a Senator. And I 
consulted with the Parliamentarian. The rule is that a Senator may 
challenge another Senator who violates rule XIX by standing and saying: 
I call the Senator to order.
  I choose not to do that. I don't want to make a Federal case of it. 
But, also, I choose not to ignore it, and I think it is unbecoming 
conduct for a Senator to offer an idiotic amendment. But I don't think 
this amendment is idiotic. But I will let the body decide that on a 
vote, either on a challenge on procedural grounds or on a vote on the 
merits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there has been any offense taken by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, it was not intended, and I would hope he 
would accept my apologies if he took offense. I think this amendment is 
wrong.
  It is inappropriate, and it is dead wrong, and the facts, as I stated 
as to how this amendment got on an Agriculture appropriations bill, are 
accurate. It first went to the Commerce Committee where they tried to 
get us to do it, and we would not because we do not believe it is in 
keeping with the law.
  Then they went to the Governmental Affairs Committee and now it has 
ended up being put as an amendment on the Agriculture appropriations 
bill. That is wrong. I did not challenge the parliamentary right of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania to do so. We had the same parliamentary 
reading that the Senator from Pennsylvania did.
  I think this amendment is a violation of the agreement that was made 
in 1997 in the form of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, P.L. 
105-134.
  Again, if the Senator from Pennsylvania took offense at something I 
said personally, then he has my apologies. That does not change the 
fact that this amendment is the wrong thing to do. I strongly oppose 
it, and I believe if we continue, as I said in the conclusion of my 
remarks previously, if we continue to authorize and legislate on 
appropriations bills, this practice will continue

[[Page 15583]]

the breakdown of the procedures that are intended and established by 
the Senate.
  I stand by those words, and I again say, even though it may not be in 
violation of the strict parliamentary rules, it is wrong to put an 
amendment concerning Amtrak on Agriculture appropriations bills. I 
believe I have that right to believe that is an inappropriate way, and 
the Commerce Committee or the Governmental Affairs Committee should 
have reviewed this and did review it and should be allowed the 
jurisdiction.
  Nor did I at any time tell the Senator, or in my remarks to the body, 
that every Senator does not have their right to a proposed amendment on 
whatever issue they wish. That is why we have a Parliamentarian. Never 
at any time--certainly not this Senator--would I say that an individual 
Senator should be deprived of his or her rights since I exercise those 
with some frequency.
  I hope that clarifies the intent of my remarks which are that this 
amendment is not in keeping with the Amtrak Reform and Accountability 
Act, and I do not believe--and as a Senator I have the right to the 
view--that it is not appropriate to be placed on an Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I also rise in opposition to this 
amendment and join my colleague from Arizona in his opposition. We just 
held a number of hearings in the Housing and Transportation 
Subcommittee of the Banking Committee. I chair this subcommittee. We 
found that we even have the Federal Transit Administration subsidizing 
Amtrak. Clearly, in my mind, when I look at the 1997 accountability 
act, Congress intended to move Amtrak to self-sufficiency.
  Amtrak claims to be a private corporation, and, plainly and simply, 
private corporations are not eligible to lease Government vehicles.
  I have grown increasingly skeptical about what is going on with 
Amtrak. It seems they found a way of picking up Government subsidies 
all over the place.
  Several years ago, the FTA required--I want to get back to some other 
issues that may either be directly or indirectly related to this 
amendment, but several years ago, The Federal Transit Authority 
required the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to bid out 
contracts for their commuter rail services. Four companies bid. Amtrak 
had the highest cost bid and lowest quality.
  This will cost taxpayers $75 million above the low bid. This is a $75 
million, 3-year subsidy on top of the nearly $600 million annual 
subsidy Congress grants Amtrak. Now they want the subsidy of leasing 
Government vehicles. I ask my colleagues: When are we really going to 
require Amtrak to be self-sufficient?
  For that reason, I oppose this amendment with my colleague from 
Arizona and urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief response to the argument 
by the Senator from Colorado, I agree with him that Amtrak needs to be 
self-sufficient, and that is the purpose of the legislation. The 
question is, How fast is that going to occur? They are looking for 
self-sufficiency under the existing legislation by the year 2003. What 
they are asking for here is an extension from October 1, 2000, to 
October 1, 2002. I went into some detail on the information provided by 
Governor Thompson, who is chairman of the Board of Amtrak, as to the 
progress which they are making.
  When the Senator from Arizona says there is no mistake here, he may 
be right about that. Maybe this is not an unintended consequence, but 
where you have a provision which reaches the extent of leasing under 
these circumstances, I doubt that anybody thought about that when the 
legislation was drafted. Maybe it is not an unintended consequence, but 
I doubt very much that it is an intended consequence. It is something 
that happened that nobody had thought about. Perhaps if nobody had 
thought about it, it is genuinely an unintended consequence.
  Considering the issues we face in this body, when you are talking 
about $15 million, although not unsubstantial, we seldom take a 
protracted period of time as we wrestle with the budget of $1.850 
trillion. I have not calculated the percent, but it is a mighty tiny 
fraction. This is symbolic as to what we are trying to do to get Amtrak 
on its feet.
  When the Senator from Arizona says it is wrong to put this amendment 
on this bill, I have to categorically disagree with that as a matter of 
fact because if the rules allow this amendment to go on this bill, it 
is not wrong to put this amendment on this bill. It may be an unwise 
amendment, it may be against public policy, but it is not a wrongful 
act to put this amendment on this bill when the advice that the Senator 
from Arizona got was the same as the advice this Senator got: that as a 
matter of parliamentary procedure, it is an appropriate matter.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3958. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), 
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--24

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Craig
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Kerry
     Murray
  The amendment (No. 3958) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I will be sending to the 
desk is on behalf of myself and Senators Conrad, Wellstone, Grams of 
Minnesota, Torricelli, Schumer, Levin, Leahy, Kennedy, Reed, Sarbanes, 
Dodd, Lieberman, Mikulski, Hollings, Baucus, and Breaux.
  The amendment would provide some emergency financial assistance for 
family farmers that have incurred disaster losses.


                           Amendment No. 3963

  (Purpose: To make emergency financial assistance available to 
producers on a farm that have incurred losses in a 2000 crop due to a 
disaster and to producers of specialty crops that incurred losses 
during the 1999 crop year due to a disaster)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I now send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page 15584]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Grams, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Hollings, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3963.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the end of chapter 1 of title I of division B, add the 
     following:
       Sec. 1108. Crop Loss Assistance.--(a) In General.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary 
     of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (not to exceed 
     $900,000,000) to make emergency financial assistance 
     available to producers on a farm that have incurred losses in 
     a 2000 crop due to a disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 1102 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
     Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 105-
     277), including using the same loss thresholds as were used 
     in administering that section.
       (c) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may 
     be made available for losses due to damaging weather or 
     related condition (including losses due to scab, sclerotinia, 
     aflotoxin, and other crop diseases) associated with crops 
     that are, as determined by the Secretary--
       (1) quantity losses (including quantity losses as a result 
     of quality losses);
       (2) quality losses; or
       (3) severe economic losses.
       (d) Crops Covered.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     applicable to losses for all crops, as determined by the 
     Secretary, due to disasters.
       (e) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize 
     producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (f) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--The Secretary may use 
     such sums as are necessary of funds made available under this 
     section to make livestock indemnity payments to producers on 
     a farm that have incurred losses during calendar year 2000 
     for livestock losses due to a disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (g) Hay Losses.--The Secretary may use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds made available under this section to make 
     payments to producers on a farm that have incurred losses of 
     hay stock during calendar year 2000 due to a disaster, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (h) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
       Sec. 1109. Specialty Crops.--(a) In General.--The Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary of funds 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make emergency 
     financial assistance available to producers of fruits, 
     vegetables, and other specialty crops, as determined by the 
     Secretary, that incurred losses during the 1999 crop year due 
     to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may 
     be made available for losses due to a disaster associated 
     with specialty crops that are, as determined by the 
     Secretary--
       (1) quantity losses;
       (2) quality losses; or
       (3) severe economic losses.
       (c) Eligibility.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     applicable to losses for all specialty crops, as determined 
     by the Secretary, due to disasters.
       (d) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize 
     producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (e) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am reluctant to say this, but I have 
to sooner or later. How many items are we going to keep adding and 
calling them ``emergencies''? We have already passed a lot of 
emergencies for agriculture. I believe there are emergencies in this 
bill. I just wonder how many more we can come to the floor with. 
Everybody should know that when you come here and designate it as an 
emergency under the Budget Act resolution, it means it doesn't count 
against anything. If we want to, we can be down here the rest of this 
evening adding additional items and saying they are emergencies.
  I don't know enough about this amendment. It is difficult to 
understand, even though it has been read. But we do know one thing: It 
costs $900 million.
  Obviously, there are some who do not want anybody interfering with 
people's ability to come down here and add money. But I frankly think 
what we ought to do is test this one out. I don't believe it is the 
right amendment to adopt as an emergency. I think maybe we will discuss 
it. Some will decide what it looks like and understand it. I don't 
know. But I am going to make a point of order that this amendment 
contains an emergency designation in violation of section 205 of H. 
Con. Res. 290, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
  I am perfectly willing to have a debate. We have the statute in front 
of us. If the Senator wants to make a case for the Senate that in fact 
he has a brand new emergency, it wasn't available to the committee. It 
wasn't available the last two times we had an agriculture 
supplemental--a number of which were emergencies for which we paid 
billions of dollars. I can recall a couple that were $7 billion. One 
was $6 billion. Then there are lesser ones now that are all 
supplementals for emergencies for agriculture. I have been told there 
is no limit so don't bother. There is no limit to those things that 
will pass as emergencies in the agricultural area.
  It is kind of difficult when it is an agricultural issue to get up 
here and say this because there are some in my State; there are some in 
other States. I am sure when we are through understanding this 
amendment, they will try to convince us that everybody should vote for 
it because it affects them. Frankly, even if it does affect them, it 
doesn't mean we have to determine that it doesn't count. It should 
count.
  I have a statute in front of me. I will yield the floor for a moment. 
Perhaps the Senator from Texas would like to read the statute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Mexico and 
also to the Senators from Texas and Arizona that it is my intention, 
having offered this amendment, to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment after I have had a chance to discuss exactly what the Senator 
from New Mexico just described--new events that have occurred that have 
been quite disastrous in my State and some others that are now 
occurring in a significant region of the country dealing with drought.
  My point is to say this about this amendment--and some of my 
colleagues will want to reinforce it. We have an agricultural disaster, 
not with respect to the collapse of commodity prices but with respect 
to floods and drought that have destroyed a significant number of crops 
in various parts of our country.
  If I might, with my colleagues' consent, show a picture of a fellow 
standing in front of about 300 acres of soybeans. As you can see, it is 
of course nothing but water. These soybeans are gone. It is the result 
of a June 12 and June 13 deluge of rain that fell in the

[[Page 15585]]

Red River Valley, somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 to 19 inches of 
rain in a period of about 36 hours.
  Let me say that again.
  In the Red River Valley, on dead flat land, 16 to 19 inches of rain 
fell in some areas in about 36 hours. Then on June 19, in Cass County, 
and in Richland County, and several other areas of the State, in a 6-
hour period a group of thunderstorms came together and dumped 8 to 9 
inches of rain in a very short period of time. The result was fields as 
far as the eye could see that looked exactly like this, with crops 
planted that are devastated and destroyed. In fact, in the Red River 
Valley area, both in the northern and the southern part of the valley, 
about 1.7 million acres of crops were lost or significantly damaged as 
a result of those two devastating events.
  We also have a significant drought that is occurring right now in the 
southern part of our country. As you know, crops are burning up at an 
accelerated pace. We have a disaster occurring for farmers in other 
parts of the country.
  Let me again say it is my intention to seek consent to withdraw the 
amendment. I offered the amendment for the purpose of saying to the 
Congress that, yes, in fact, new events have occurred beginning on June 
12 and 13 in our State when 18 to 19 inches of rain fell in about 36 
hours, devastating a million and three-quarters acres of crop land. New 
events are occurring this week, and occurred last week, and I assume in 
the weeks ahead, with respect to the crops in the southern region of 
the United States.
  I think we will have to address this issue. I think somehow we have 
to find a way to provide some assistance to those family farmers whose 
crops have been destroyed by a natural disaster.
  Some will say perhaps there was some money provided earlier in the 
year in an agriculture bill for family farmers. That of course is true, 
and it dealt with the issue of collapsed grain prices. That 
reimbursement had to do with the collapse of market prices for 
commodities. There is, however, a circumstance in our country today, 
given the new laws in recent years, in which we don't have a disaster 
program available to try to provide some assistance when these 
disasters occur.
  I offered the amendment for the purpose of discussing it, as will my 
colleague.
  At this point, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3963) was withdrawn.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the managers of the bill, I 
send a package of amendments to the desk, the agriculture emergency 
assistance package, and ask that they be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and 
     Mr. Kohl, on behalf of other Senators, proposes en bloc 
     amendments beginning with No. 3964.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Is the amendment divisible?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator sent up a group of amendments that 
require consent to be considered en bloc.
  Mr. GRAMM. I object to them being considered en bloc.


                           Amendment No. 3964

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the first amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3964.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me make a point of order and say that 
it is the intention of the manager to read a description of each of the 
amendments in the order in which they have been submitted to the Chair 
so that all Senators will be advised of the nature of the amendment.
  I renew my request to ask that the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide the use of funds for the Emergency Watershed 
Program for emergency expenses for floodplain operations identified as 
                           of July 18, 2000)

       On page 76, after line 18, of Division B, as modified, 
     insert:


                 natural resources conservation service

               watershed and flood prevention operations

       ``For an additional amount for `Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations,' to repair damages to the waterways 
     and watersheds, including the purchase of floodplain 
     easements, resulting from natural disasters, $70,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds shall 
     be used for activities identified by July 18, 2000: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request for $70,000,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. For the information of Senators and the edification of 
all Senators who have asked that amendments be put before the Senate, 
under a section of the bill entitled ``Agriculture Emergency Assistance 
Package,'' I will read the list that the managers recommend be 
considered now by the Senate:
  Amendment No. 1, for Senator Harkin, to provide additional funding 
for emergency watershed and flood prevention operations;
  No. 2, an amendment for Senators Levin and Collins to provide 
emergency assistance to apple and potato producers;
  No. 3, an amendment on behalf of Senators Graham and Mack----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could the Senator state the dollar number when he reads 
it? You gave us a description. Can you tell us how much?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I was going to give you a total dollar number.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you know each amount? It is your bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. We have one amendment before the Senate, the Harkin 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Harkin amendment is $70 million. The Levin-Collins 
amendment is $115 million; the Graham-Mack amendment to compensate for 
nursery stock losses does not score.
  No. 4, an amendment on behalf of Senators Lott, Cochran, and Kohl to 
extend the wetlands reserve program; it is estimated to cost $117 
million;
  No. 5, an amendment on behalf of Senators Leahy and Jeffords, 
compensation for livestock losses, is estimated to cost $4 million;
  No. 6, an amendment on behalf of Senators Harkin and Bond, for green 
biotechnology evaluation, estimated to cost $600,000;
  No. 7, an amendment on behalf of Senators Abraham, Schumer, and 
Levin, for potatoes and apples quality losses, estimated to cost $45 
million;
  No. 8, on behalf of Senators Graham and Mack on compensation for 
citrus canker losses, estimated to cost $40 million;
  No. 9, on behalf of Senator Cochran, on emergency APHIS funding, 
estimated to cost $59.4 million;
  An amendment on behalf of Senators Thurmond and Hollings on grain 
indemnity assistance, estimated to cost $2.5 million;
  An amendment on behalf of Senator Cochran on conservation assistance, 
no score on budget authority, $6 million in budget outlays;
  No. 12, on behalf of Senator Sessions on livestock assistance, no 
score is available, and is estimated to have no cost;

[[Page 15586]]

  No. 13, on behalf of Senator Edwards on community facilities, 
estimated to cost $50 million;
  No. 14, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, natural disaster assistance, the 
amendment described, $450 million;
  No. 15, Senators Inouye and Akaka, an amendment on commodity 
transportation assistance, estimated to cost $7.2 million.
  That is the entire list, for the information of Senators. It has been 
reviewed by the managers and recommended to the Senate by the offering 
of the amendment as eligible for agriculture emergency assistance in 
the amounts identified as stated.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What was the total?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The total amount of all of these amendments amounts to 
about $900 million. The bill contained $1.116 billion in emergency-
designated programs and activities as reported by the committee. So the 
total emergency designated items and programs included in the bill, if 
this package is agreed to, would amount to $2.1 billion based on 
preliminary scoring made available to the committee by the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I first clarify that the $450 
million that the Senator from Mississippi referenced is not for North 
Dakota. It is a national program to deal with disasters that have 
occurred in this most recent period of time. Some States have been hit 
by drought. Some States have been hit by flooding.
  In reference to the question of the Senator from New Mexico, whether 
these are emergencies that could not have been dealt with in the normal 
process of the committee's work, the answer is affirmatively yes, they 
could not have been dealt with in the normal work of the committee. 
They could not have been dealt with in the previous supplemental 
because the disaster had not yet occurred--at least with respect to 
North Dakota.
  Senator Dorgan indicated we had the most remarkable weather event 
since we saw the 500-year flood in 1997. In mid-June, our State got 20 
inches of rain in 36 hours. This is the headline from the biggest paper 
in the State: ``Swamped.'' This was a week after the rain that I just 
referenced.
  The rain that I just referenced occurred a week before this one. We 
have been hit by the most remarkable series of floods since the 1997 
flood, which was a 500-year event.
  On June 12, in North Dakota, we had rains that were up to 20 inches 
in a wide band in northeastern North Dakota. Seven days later we got 
hit with this rainstorm--8 inches in 6 hours. The devastation is 
stunning.
  On the State university, this is the reference, NDSU, $50 million at 
the State university.
  At the dome that is the large center, the activity center for the 
city: $10 million of damage. In surrounding farm areas as a result of 
these two floods: 1.7 million acres devastated.
  The catastrophe in our State cannot be overstated: 1.7 million acres 
of land devastated, hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in the 
largest city in our State. This is an emergency by any definition. 
Unfortunately, it had not occurred when we dealt with the 
supplementals. It had not occurred when the committee did its work. It 
is only now that we know the full extent of the damage. That is why we 
are here asking our colleagues not for a new program but to reinstate 
the program we had last year to deal with crop loss disasters.
  Last year, we put in place a program that cost about $2 billion to 
deal with natural disasters. This year we are asking for $900 million 
not just for North Dakota but for the other States that have been hit 
as well. We know the devastation in North Dakota is stunning, but we 
are not alone. In other areas of the country disasters have ruined 
crops as well: 216 counties in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida 
were declared disaster areas on July 14.
  I might say to my colleagues, I spoke on this matter last Friday with 
Senator Coverdell, Senator Coverdell who was tragically lost to us 
earlier this week. Senator Coverdell had indicated that he would join 
in an amendment because Georgia has been devastated. South Carolina and 
Florida were declared agricultural disaster areas as well on that same 
day, July 14.
  USDA has also declared agricultural disasters in parts of Alabama, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, Mississippi, New York, Texas, 
Washington, and perhaps other States. These are the States that I know 
of that have had disasters declared.
  The hard reality is these things have happened. The earlier package 
we dealt with was designed for economic disasters. That has been 
passed. That has been signed into law. This is to give back the program 
that was available last year for areas hit by drought or severe 
flooding. We are asking for $900 million. I can tell you, it is 
desperately needed, desperately needed. It is without question an 
emergency.
  This series of events, at least in our State, had not occurred at the 
time of the supplemental appropriations bills, nor had it occurred so 
the full extent of the damage was known for the committee 
deliberations. That is the reality.
  This responds also to the needs of producers in the Northeastern 
United States who have been hit, and the needs of producers hit by 
disasters in the South.
  I ask my colleagues to very carefully consider their response to this 
request. We have always tried to be a United States of America in 
response to disasters, listening to the needs of every State in every 
condition. I regret very much that I am here asking again. We have had 
nine Presidential disaster declarations in the last 8 years in my 
State. I never remember something like this in my life. There is some 
extraordinary weather pattern affecting my State.
  As many of you know, we have a lake that has risen 25 vertical feet 
in the last 6 years, a lake that is the size of the District of 
Columbia, a lake that is devouring surrounding communities, roads, 
farms--that is another disaster. That lake missed having this 
extraordinary rainfall by 70 miles. If that lake would have been hit by 
this 20 inches of rain in 2 days, we would have been here dealing with 
a calamity of stunning proportion.
  So I say to my colleagues, I know none of us like these surprise 
requests, but we could not have made the request until the disaster 
occurred. We could not have quantified the need, unfortunately, until 
FEMA and USDA had a chance to go in and do a review of the level of 
disaster. Again, the $450 million requested is not for North Dakota. It 
is a national response to all the States that have been affected to 
repeat the program we passed and put in place last year. I hope my 
colleagues' hearts will not turn cold simply because we have had to 
face disasters year after year. I can tell you, the people of my State 
need help. Mr. President, 1.7 million acres devastated, that is one-
fifth, 20 percent of the crop base of my State, and the biggest city of 
my State, as the headline in the biggest newspaper in my State says: 
``Swamped.''
  This is from the Grand Forks Herald, one of the four largest cities 
in the State, 80 miles to the north of Fargo: ``Area Flooding 
Continues.'' Here are additional reports, ``Weather Service Official 
Says Storm Worst He's Ever Seen.''
  It is hard to describe an event of this proportion--20 inches of rain 
in 36 hours. It is Biblical. I don't know any other way to say it to my 
colleagues.
  This is from the Fargo Forum, again the biggest newspaper in our 
State, with officials there saying: ``It's the worst rain flood we've 
ever had''--in the history of our State.
  Finally, this story kind of tells it all, again from the biggest 
newspaper in our State: ``Floods Finish Off Crops Hurt By Drought.''
  I just conclude by saying to my colleagues: It is perverse but it has 
happened. Hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in my State alone, 
with other States similarly affected. We ought to put in place the 
program we had last year to help those who deserve assistance. That is 
my plea to my colleagues tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page 15587]]

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has been 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Texas, I 
think I will take about 3 or 4 minutes; that's all. I want to associate 
myself with the remarks of my colleagues from North Dakota.
  I simply want to put it in personal terms because I think that is the 
way most Senators understand things. About 2 weeks ago, I was visiting 
with friends. When I drove up, there were pickup trucks as far as you 
could see. The farmers were there because of flooding, again, for the 
seventh year in a row. In my State, 350,000 acres of farmland have been 
destroyed. You could just look at the faces of people and see the pain. 
This happened in June when we were dealing with the MILCON bill. We 
were not able to assess the damage yet.
  Look, whatever the vehicle is and however we do this, I thank Senator 
Cochran for understanding what we are trying to do, and I hope--this 
amendment has been withdrawn, but I hope we do come together as 
Senators to support this. This is not just about North Dakota or 
Minnesota; it also is about a lot of States in the South. There, it is 
the opposite problem; it is drought.
  I have only been here--I guess it is a long time--9 years. That is 
not as long as some of my colleagues. The way I feel about the Senate 
is we do become a community. Maybe we will do it a different way, but 
we are a community in the sense that it is, there but for the grace of 
God go I. Whenever Senators come to the floor and say: My God, it's 
been tornadoes, it's been hurricanes, its floods, its droughts and 
people are hurting and people need help, I do not hesitate to vote for 
other Senators and other people in other States. That is what this is 
about.
  This amendment has been withdrawn, but the question before us will 
continue to be a question before us. I certainly hope that, working 
with Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, we will be able to get 
the support.
  I will finish this way: This is not like how do you come to the floor 
of the Senate and sneak something through or there is something that 
you are doing that is some flagrant special interest favor. The only 
special interests here are a whole bunch of good people, who are going 
through a living hell, who need some help. What we are trying to do is 
get that help for those people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if we were beginning to write a farm budget 
this year, these arguments might resonate. The problem is we have 
already spent $9.6 billion that required budget waivers so far this 
year: Spending some of it in the year 2000, and spending some of it in 
the year 2001, but all of it where we made a commitment to spend this 
year.
  What is really happening is we are in the process of simply throwing 
the budget out the window. We are in the process of letting this budget 
surplus literally burn a hole in our pockets. The level of scratching 
and clawing to get into the pockets of the Federal Government is at a 
level I have never experienced in the 22 years I have served in 
Congress.
  It seems to me if this provision were meritorious in a bill that is 
providing $14.85 billion of discretionary assistance to farmers and 
ranchers, it would have found a place. In fact, this bill, in addition 
to the $1.4 billion of crop insurance, $1.6 billion in emergency 
assistance, the $5.5 billion of loss assistance, the $1.1 billion this 
bill has for emergencies--if we adopt this amendment, we are saying 
that a full $10.5 billion of emergency spending in agriculture will be 
expended this year when the entire nonemergency part of the bill is 
$14.85 billion. In other words, we have about a 66-percent increase in 
spending, all in the name of emergency.
  I have to say I believe this has gone too far. We are all interested 
in helping farmers and ranchers. We all know there are problems, but 
every year the President proposes a level of assistance, Republicans 
raise it, Democrats raise it more, and then our Democrat colleagues 
raise it again. Is there no limit to the amount of money we are willing 
to spend because we have this surplus?
  Obviously, I cannot address every issue raised by every Senator, but 
one has to ask the question: When 50 cents out of every dollar going to 
farmers in America is coming from the Government, what is going on in 
America today?
  It is very interesting to me, and I just put these figures out here 
and pose a question: If we are having a complete agricultural disaster, 
if farmers are going broke left and right, if we should be spending 
almost 70 percent of our ag budget in emergency add-on spending, what 
would you expect to be happening to farm debt? Given that we have a 70-
percent cost over-run to ``help the farmer,'' what would you think is 
happening to farm debt? What would you think is happening to the level 
of farm assets? What would you think is happening to the debt-to-asset 
ratio?--in other words, the amount of debt farmers have relative to 
their assets.
  When we have allowed emergency spending to reach levels unprecedented 
in the history of this country, when we have made emergency 
appropriations in agriculture the norm, when we have had a bidding war 
to buy votes in rural America such as this country has never seen in 
its history because of all of these losses, what would you think is 
happening to farm debt?
  Let me just give you the figures: Farm debt in 1998 was $172.9 
billion. In 1999, it was $172.8 billion. This year, it is projected to 
be $172.5 billion.
  With all of this economic disaster, with this destruction such as we 
have not seen since Steinbeck novels, somehow, remarkably, farm debt is 
going down and not up. Yet we cannot spend money fast enough. There is 
just not enough money in the world to meet the demand we have for it.
  What would you think is happening to farm assets? Farmers going broke 
left and right, leaving the farm, disaster, the trails, the trucks 
going to California, the desertion, the disaster in rural America--what 
do you think is happening to farm assets? They must be plummeting. They 
must be in a complete free-fall. Oddly enough, not only are they not 
plummeting, they are going up. They were $1.0643 trillion in 1998, 
$1.0672 trillion in 1999, and they are projected to be $1.0728 trillion 
this year.
  If there is such absolute calamity in agriculture in America today, 
why are assets going up, and not down?
  Finally, with all of this burgeoning debt--farmers drowning in debt; 
the mortgage collector at the door; the mean, cold-hearted banker 
beating on the farm door, foreclosing mortgages; widows being put out 
on the lawn on our farms--what do you think has happened to the debt-
to-asset ratio in agriculture? It was $16.2 billion in 1998, $16.2 
billion in 1999, and $16.1 billion today.
  What is wrong with this picture? We are saying that the world is 
collapsing in rural America, and we are spending at rates unprecedented 
in the history of this country to deal with a calamity; and yet farm 
debt is going down, farm assets are going up, and the debt-to-asset 
ratio in agricultural America is actually going down.
  Now look, something is wrong here.
  What is wrong with this picture? I will tell you what is wrong with 
this picture. The obscene actions that have been taken in this 
Congress. There seems to be no limit to what we are willing to spend in 
the name of agriculture. I think it has to stop. I can't judge the 
merits of this case, this $70 million, that $115 million, the next $117 
million, $4 million, $600,000----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend.
  The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. GRAMM. The $45 million, $40 million, $59.4 million, $2.5 million, 
$6 million, $50 million, $450 million, $7.2 million--these are all 
emergencies

[[Page 15588]]

that, when we funded the three previous emergencies, did not make it 
into the stack. When this bill was written, in a committee that is not 
known for turning a cold, dead eye to suffering farmers and ranchers, 
this $900 million never made it into the stack.
  But here we are, on a Thursday afternoon, at 7:20 p.m., and we are 
talking about $900 million--$900 million of spending that was not in 
the budget, that was not in the appropriations bill, that requires a 
waiver of the Budget Act, and that requires the designation of an 
emergency.
  I am saying, in $10 billion of emergency spending and $14.85 billion 
of ordinary spending--out of $25 billion that we are spending--how come 
there was not room for this $900 million? How come we are suddenly 
dealing with it at 7:25 p.m. tonight?
  I think the answer is as clear as the answer can be. The answer is, 
we are determined we are going to spend every penny we can spend. We 
are turning our budget process into an absolute laughing stock. We are 
proving that all somebody has to do is walk down to the floor on 
Thursday evening and offer an amendment, spending millions of dollars, 
and it is great.
  We are asked: Have you lost compassion? Look, I have plenty of 
compassion. But how much compassion is enough? How much do we have to 
spend on these programs? This year, we have already spent almost $10 
billion in agricultural programs that required a budget waiver. We are 
already to the point where half of all net farm income is coming from a 
check from Washington, DC. Where does it end?
  Final point--I have talked too long--but today, when we had Alan 
Greenspan before the Banking Committee, he was asked whether or not he 
was concerned about the fact that if you take the appropriation growth 
we had this year and project it for 10 years, it is over $1 trillion in 
new spending. We are realistically debating a new entitlement that, 
when fully implemented for 10 years, would cost about $750 billion. He 
said he was very concerned about it, that he thought it represented a 
potential threat to the economy.
  So I am not saying that all of these things are without merit. I am 
just saying: When does it end? When does it stop? How much is enough? 
Is $10 billion of emergency spending--almost 70 percent above the 
normal level of spending--is that not enough?
  I think these are real questions that need to be answered. I think it 
is important that we stop these amendments. And they may be adopted. 
Look, I understand the votes may be here to adopt them. But they are 
going to be adopted individually. And they are going to be subject to a 
point of order. We are going to begin to resist. This has to end 
somewhere. It seems to me that this is the place where we need to begin 
to talk about it ending.
  I, quite frankly, was willing to accept all of these so-called 
emergencies already in the bill, but this just goes beyond the limits 
of endurance, in my opinion.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I am very pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee is going to raise a point of order, very shortly, on the 
first amendment, the Harkin amendment. I do not pretend to have the 
budget knowledge and expertise of the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee, but I do know that when he becomes exercised about 
what is taking place, at an ever-increasing crescendo of additional 
spending, about which Members really have no information or knowledge, 
we have to bring this to a halt at some point.
  I say to my colleagues now, I will make every effort to prevent us 
from going out of session without the appropriations process being 
resolved. No more should we all go home while four or five Members of 
Congress decide on omnibus appropriations bills and then we are called 
back to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on a bill that none of us has had a 
chance to know or read.
  Every year, for the last 3 years, we have been assured that this will 
not happen again. Well, my friends, I will do everything in my power 
not to have it happen again.
  But let me point out, the Harkin amendment, which we just saw--this 
amendment which was about to be adopted by voice vote in the package of 
amendments totaling $960 million, which none of us had seen--let me 
just describe it to you.
  It says:

       For an additional amount for ``Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations,'' to repair damages to the waterways 
     and watersheds, including the purchase of floodplain 
     easements, resulting from natural disasters, $70,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds shall 
     be used for activities identified by July 18, 2000 . . . .

  Let me repeat that:

       . . . That funds shall be used for activities identified by 
     July 18, 2000. . . .

  That was 2 days ago. What activities? Identified by whom? The 
Department of Reclamation? The Department of Agriculture? Senator 
Gramm? Senator Harkin? What activities that were identified by July 18? 
And where is the record of July 18 of these activities that were 
identified to spend $70 million on?
  What is going on? We are going to spend $70 million for ``Watershed 
and Flood Prevention Operations,'' for ``activities identified by July 
18, 2000'? Is there any Member of this body, including the sponsor of 
the bill, who knows what activities have been identified?
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to give him 
the answer.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be happy to hear the answer.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The date of July 18 was chosen because it was on that 
date that the National Resources Conservation Service provided a list 
to the committee, at our request, of unfunded needs that were 
considered emergency watershed projects throughout the United States.
  It was this list from which we chose to estimate the funding needs 
that ought to be included in this bill as true emergencies. The total 
amount of the unfunded projected needs is $157,111,000. We have 
suggested the $70 million figure for emergencies. Of those projected 
needs, spring floods accounted for $30 million, hurricanes and 
tornadoes for $50 million, and fires for $10 million. These are either 
erosions or destruction of watershed protection facilities or the 
requirement for obtaining floodplain easements in those areas. That is 
generally across the United States. It is not State specific.
  Then there are 23 States where the amounts are specifically 
identified as totaling $67,111,000. These are the States: Alaska, 
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, 
Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, 
Utah, and Wisconsin. They vary in each State from, for example, Alaska, 
which is a small number, $237,000, to a large number, California, $12 
million; another large number, Illinois, $7.5 million; and Iowa, which 
was the subject of Senator Harkin's request, $7.5 million, to which the 
managers added all the other States so it wouldn't be just relief for 
one State but all States that were similarly situated would be included 
in this amendment because they all had similar needs.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. That is very 
illuminating. I guess my next question to the distinguished manager is, 
we already have $1.1 billion worth of spending designated ``emergency'' 
in the bill. What occurred in the intervening time that necessitated an 
additional nearly billion dollars and next week will there be another 
billion dollars? I believe only a week has elapsed since the bill was 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, these are 
figures that were provided to the committee by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service. That service administers the Emergency Watershed 
Protection Program. These are the projected needs through fiscal year 
2000. They were provided to the committee on July 18 at our request.

[[Page 15589]]

  This program was out of money as of sometime last fall because of the 
cutbacks in funding that we have been seeing in this bill, along with 
others as well. To try to achieve consistency with the budget 
resolution targets and our allocation under section 302(b), we were not 
able to fund programs to the full amount of the request from the 
administration for projected needs.
  These are given to us as certified emergency needs from this agency 
that has the responsibility of administering the program.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that information.
  The Senator from Mississippi has added a great deal to the store of 
knowledge of this body. I think it is very helpful. I still don't quite 
understand why at the end of an appropriations bill there should be, en 
bloc, 15 or whatever it is amendments worth over $900 million, which we 
didn't even get a copy of until we demanded it at the time, after the 
amendments were proposed. I don't think that is the way we should do 
business around here, particularly when we are talking about hundreds 
and millions and billions of dollars. I think it would have been 
appropriate--although I won't continue with the floor--as to what 
happened to the $8 billion or so that we already spent. What about 
those emergencies and what happened to that money?
  I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his information and yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will try to be very brief.
  I want to make an observation. I honestly believe that we would be 
better off if instead of continually adding emergencies for agriculture 
or anything else, if we were to add more money straight up to the 
appropriations process. I believe we ought to just ask the chairman and 
ranking member at the end of this year to add more money. But we ought 
not to, by the week, add emergencies.
  I know there are a number of bills--who knows where we will come out 
on them--that are taking care of problems by adding emergency 
provisions. I believe the chairman understands, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee understands our problem. I believe Senator 
Byrd understands our problem. The solution is not to add an emergency 
by the week, have a bill and then everybody comes running and we say: 
There is no room for it. Well, call it an emergency and then there will 
be room because it doesn't count against anything.
  I want to make another observation about the agricultural community. 
I probably have the best support or at least as good support as any 
Senator here from the agricultural community of my State. But I am not 
impressed with the year-in-year-out emergency requests of the 
agricultural community of this country. It is approaching the 
ridiculous. They ask the Budget Committee, put more money in for 
agriculture.
  We were pretty skimpy on other things, but we were not very skimpy on 
agriculture. We provided, and the committee held on to this in the 
appropriations, a $5.5 billion reserve fund for market losses. As soon 
as they funded it, the reserve fund was released, and they had $5.5 
billion. Market losses are emergencies in the broad sense for 
agriculture, I guess. I understand that to be the case. People are 
getting checks because the market didn't work. They didn't get money.
  We put in a new crop insurance allowance for which everybody thanked 
us. It was passed, but it was passed even bigger than we thought. And 
that was all right. That amounted to $3 billion. It is heralded as a 
fantastic success by people such as Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. We 
finally did it. Now crop insurance is emergency money. It is a rational 
way to take care of annual losses by crop insurance, a sharing of the 
burden by a lot of people. When a crop fails, you have something to 
help them with.
  Well, that wasn't quite enough and we knew it. And we heard: Don't 
hold your breath; there will be more agricultural emergencies.
  I hope and pray the bill finishes tonight. I wish it would have 
finished a week ago. Sooner or later, we have to stop adding 
emergencies to a bill in the agricultural area. I am not sure that 
every one of these are agricultural subsidy enhancers. The bill has a 
lot of jurisdiction. It could be other things. The distinguished senior 
Senator from Mississippi manages the bill beautifully. He knows what he 
is doing.
  I noted also, when he sent these amendments to the desk, he said: I 
send them on behalf of the Senators that have asked for them. He did 
not say the chairman of the Agriculture Committee submits these and 
asks for all of them. I believe he really thought somebody would 
challenge some of them but he would offer them because he had worked on 
them to narrow down a request that was even bigger than this.
  I suggest that we try this on tonight, that we decide that if we need 
more money and we are going to put it in bills, that we ask the 
chairman to spend more money. I will not agree with my friend from 
Texas. It is not the appropriations bills that are going to break this 
budget. It is not the appropriations bills that are going to cause us 
to run out of the surplus that is being generated. You can count on 
that. The increases in appropriations will be wiped out by one 
entitlement bill. Whatever you expect to be added to appropriations the 
next decade will be wiped out by the first major entitlement bill that 
comes along. It will take from the same pot of surplus as 
appropriations. It is not appropriations that is breaking the bank.
  I compliment Senator Gramm for trying to keep us from going wild, but 
the truth is, it is not appropriations. We don't have any control over 
it, if in fact instead of asking for the money to be added to the 
budget and vote on that as grown-up Senators, we added money, and do 
you want it or not. You will have a shot at that when we add it because 
we are going to add money. The chairman is going to have to ask us for 
more money to get the appropriations bill, substantially more. But it 
will be a heads up add-on. It won't be coming along the way we are 
here. So when it is appropriate, after asking a parliamentary inquiry, 
I will make a point of order. What is pending before the Senate right 
now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the amendment No. 3964 
offered by Senator Cochran for Senator Harkin.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it appropriate to make a point of order under the 
Budget Act regarding the emergency quality of that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be appropriate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment contains an emergency designation in violation of section 205 
of H. Con. Res 290, and the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order 
pursuant to section 205(c) of H. Con. Res 290 with respect to all 
emergency designations in this bill and to all the amendments to this 
bill filed at this time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first issue is to determine if there is a 
sufficient second. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 3977--Motion to Waive

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3977:
       Strike all after the first word, and insert the following:

[[Page 15590]]

       ``I move to waive section 205 of the budget resolution for 
     consideration of the Harkin amendment.''

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


                Amendment No. 3978 to Amendment No. 3977

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to strike the word ``waive'' in 
the pending amendment and insert the following: ``Section 205(c) of H. 
Con. Res. 290 with respect to all emergency designations in this bill 
and all amendments filed at the desk at this time to this bill other 
than amendment No. 3918.''
  I send the motion to the desk. I ask it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3978 to amendment No. 3977.

  Mr. GRAMM. Parliamentary inquiry. Is this a strike-and-insert 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for the clerk to finish 
reporting the amendment.
  For the information of the Senator, the amendment does strike a word 
and add other language.
  Mr. GRAMM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Under the regular order, the amendment should be read or its reading 
terminated by regular order.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike the word waive in the pending amendment and insert 
     the following:
       ``Section 205(c) of H. Con. Res. 290 with respect to all 
     emergency designations in this bill and all amendments filed 
     at the desk at this time to this bill other than amendment 
     No. 3918.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 3978 to Amendment No. 3977, Withdrawn

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader and at his 
request, I ask consent that the pending motion to waive and any 
amendments thereto be withdrawn, and that the point of order be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 3457, 3933 to 3457, 3965, 3966, 3967, 3968, 3969, 3970, 
            3971, 3972, 3973, 3974, 3975, and 3976, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask consent that the Harkin amendment No. 3964 
and the other emergency designation amendments now pending at the desk 
be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3964) was agreed to.
  The amendments, en bloc, were agreed to as follows:


                           amendment no. 3457

  (Purpose: To provide market and quality loss assistance for certain 
                              commodities)

       On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__. Apple Market Loss Assistance and Quality Loss 
     Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--(a) Apple Market Loss 
     Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--In order to provide relief for loss of 
     markets for apples, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use 
     $100,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make payments to apple producers.
       (2) Payment quantity.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the payment 
     quantity of apples for which the producers on a farm are 
     eligible for payments under this subsection shall be equal to 
     the average quantity of the 1994 through 1999 crops of apples 
     produced by the producers on the farm.
       (B) Maximum quantity.--The payment quantity of apples for 
     which the producers on a farm are eligible for payments under 
     this subsection shall not exceed 1,600,000 pounds of apples 
     produced on the farm.
       (b) Quality Loss Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--In 
     addition to the assistance provided under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall use $15,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to make payments to apple producers, and 
     potato producers, that suffered quality losses to the 1999 
     crop of potatoes and apples, respectively, due to, or related 
     to, a 1999 hurricane or other weather-related disaster.
       (c) Nonduplication of Payments.--A producer shall be 
     ineligible for payments under this section with respect to a 
     market or quality loss for apples or potatoes to the extent 
     that the producer is eligible for compensation or assistance 
     for the loss under any other Federal program, other than the 
     Federal crop insurance program established under the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (d) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which would assist 
apple growers who suffered losses from fire blight and other weather 
related and economic damage. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators 
Collins, Schumer, Gorton, Murray, Snowe, Leahy, Jeffords, Moynihan, 
Durbin, Rockefeller, Robb, Abraham, and Lieberman. This spring, apple 
growers in Michigan suffered huge crop losses and damage due to several 
hail storms which caused thousands of acres of apple trees to be 
infected with fire blight. Fire blight is a bacterium that has 
destroyed thousands of acres of fruit trees in Michigan. Experts at 
Michigan State University anticipate that \1/4\ of all MI apple farmers 
have trees that are afflicted by fire blight. As a result of this 
weather related disaster, many of Michigan's best apple producers face 
diminished production this fall, and decreased revenues for many years 
to come. My amendment provides essential assistance for apple and 
potato producers that have suffered quantity losses due to fire blight 
or other weather related disasters. These hardships could not come at a 
worse time for our nation's apple farmers who, according to USDA, have 
lost nearly $1 billion over the past three years due to a variety of 
factors including diseases, such as fire blight. This legislation also 
includes assistance for apple and potato farmers who have incurred 
quality losses due to weather-related disasters.
  The Agricultural Risk Protection Act, which President Clinton signed 
into law, included some emergency assistance for our nation's farmers. 
However, much remains to be done to address the myriad of problems 
facing out nation's apple farmers. That is why with 13 cosponsors I 
have introduced amendment No. 3457 that would provide $100 million in 
assistance this year for quantitative losses of our nation's apple 
farmers. A second degree amendment that would provide $60 million for 
qualitative losses, suffered by apple and potato farmers, was attached 
to my amendment by Senators Abraham and Schumer. Articles from a number 
of Michigan papers show the plight of apple farmers, and mentions the 
need for direct assistance, in the form of this amendment, to our apple 
farmers. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 15591]]



               [From the Herald-Palladium, June 22, 2000]

        Bad Apples: Fire Blight Is Taking Bite Out of Area Crops


   Farmers seek federal financial assistance for acres of dying trees

                         (By Michael Eliasohn)

       Watervliet--The name of Rodney Winkel's farm is Grandview 
     Orchards, but the view these days is far from grand.
       A building on Winkel's Bainbridge Township farm Wednesday 
     morning was the location for a meeting of about 80 Southwest 
     Michigan farmers who have the same view--brown dead leaves on 
     dying apple trees.
       The cause is fire blight, a bacterial infection that 
     shrivels the apples and can kill the trees. Alan Jones, 
     Michigan State University's fire blight expert, said it's the 
     worst outbreak ever in Michigan.
       John Sarno, U.S. Farm Service Agency Southwest Michigan 
     regional director, said his office has received preliminary 
     reports of fire blight damage in Berrien, Van Buren, Cass and 
     Kalamazoo counties. He expects to receive a similar report 
     soon from Allegan County and believes there may be damage in 
     Ottawa and Kent counties.
       Prior to the meeting, Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB) conducted 
     a tour of four fire blighted orchards in Van Buren County for 
     aides to several Michigan members of Congress, plus staff 
     from the MSU College of Agriculture, the Farm Service Agency, 
     Michigan Department of Agriculture and others.
       Winkel described the problem facing the farmers. He and his 
     son-in-law Mark Epple grow about 300 acres of apples. ``I 
     conservatively estimate we'll take out 60 to 70 acres of 
     trees,'' he said. ``These are huge dollars we're talking 
     about and the cookie jar is dry.''
       ``A number of years ago, agriculture could handle a 
     disaster like this,'' but not any more, said MFB President 
     Jack Laurie, who chaired the meeting. ``The (profit) margin 
     has been reduced, so farmers can't stand a big loss.''
       Unlike a spring freeze that wipes out that year's crop, the 
     fire blight damage goes far beyond one year.
       Coloma area grower Jerry Jollay said during the meeting he 
     and his son, Jay, expect to lose about half of their 55 acres 
     of apple trees.
       He later told The Herald-Palladium if trees are removed and 
     new trees planted, it takes 5-6 years until they start 
     producing a good crop and it isn't until the eighth year they 
     get a full crop.
       He estimated it costs from $4,000 to $10,000 per acre to 
     replant trees and to maintain them until they start 
     producing, depending on the number planted per acre. The 
     figure does not include the value of lost production.
       Growers may be able to remove diseased limbs and save some 
     trees, according to Jones of MSU, but that could mean 2-3 
     years of reduced crops until it gets back to full production.
       ``But if you don't get it all,'' said Mike Hildebrand, ``it 
     will flare up next year or the year after.'' Hildebrand and 
     his father, Ernie, grow about 70 acres of apples near Berrien 
     Springs.
       Jones said if an infected limb is missed, the fire blight 
     will spread to the roots and kill the tree.
       And if one tree is infected, the fire blight can spread to 
     the rest of the trees in the orchard.
       Sarno told the growers there is no existing program to 
     compensate them for fire blight damages, that Congress has to 
     approve one and the funds for it. ``We have to start over,'' 
     he said. ``We have to look at what we have today (in damage) 
     and that's what we're doing today.''
       Sarno later told The Herald-Palladium there are three 
     potential programs Congress could approve, one involving low-
     interest loans to partially compensate them for their 
     production losses and tree losses.
       The other two programs would give them grants, either to 
     help cover production losses or pay for removing diseased 
     trees and planting new ones.
       Farmers with crop insurance may be covered for lost crops 
     this year.
       Sarno said county agricultural emergency boards must first 
     compile loss data, which they forward to the state emergency 
     board.
       If the state board decided the loss is significant enough, 
     it asks Gov. John Engler to ask U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 
     Dan Glickman to declare the affected counties agricultural 
     disaster areas, thus qualifying growers for aid, if Congress 
     OKs it.
       Sarno said the last time there was such an emergency, in 
     Kent County in 1998 when winds blew down trees and spread 
     fire blight, ti took about a year before growers received 
     their government checks. ``We hope to expedite this (for fire 
     blight damage),'' he said.
       Winkel said he could lose 30,000-35,000 bushels of apples 
     this year, and for the next several years, until replacement 
     trees start producing apples, his loss could be 50,000 
     bushels a year.
       The value of apples varies widely, depending on the 
     variety, when they are sold and their use, but at $6 per 
     bushel--the 1999 average from two area packing houses for 
     Jonathans--Winkel's annual loss would be $300,000 a year.
       He said Idared, Jonathon, Rome, Gala, Paulared and Golden 
     Delicious are the varieties being affected most by fire 
     flight.
       For some growers, fire blight isn't their only problem. 
     Jollay said spring frosts and freezes reduced his tart cherry 
     crop by probably half, apples by 20 percent and peaches by 50 
     percent.
       Then hail on May 18 caused more damage, followed by the 
     fire blight. He guessed he will have only about a fourth of 
     his normal crop of apples.
       In his 35 years in agriculture, Jollay said, he has 
     suffered losses from freezes, hail and fire blight, but not 
     all in one year. ``This is absolutely the worst I've ever 
     seen.'' He said he and his son hope to get through this year 
     with income from pumpkins, their other significant crop, and 
     their pick-your-own ``family fun'' operations in the fall.
       As for possible federal aid, he said: ``Hopefully this will 
     help alleviate part of the problem.''
       Coloma area grower Paul Friday, whose 140 acres of peaches 
     suffered major hail damage on May 18, asked that hail-caused 
     damage to fruit and young trees not yet bearing fruit be 
     included in any assistance program.
                                  ____


              [From the Kalamazoo Gazette, June 22, 2000]

Apple Growers Getting Burned--Epidemic of Fire Blight Devastates Local 
                                  Crop

                            (By Ed Finnerty)

       HARTFORD--The Golden Delicious apple trees on Kevin 
     Winkel's family farm are anything but golden or delicious.
       Their leaves are more brown than green. Their fruit 
     resembles rotting grapes more than edible apples.
       To Winkel and scores of besieged farmers in the apple 
     country of Van Buren and Berrien counties, a killer epidemic 
     of fire blight that has overtaken their orchards and 
     threatens their livelihoods is a disaster by any reasonable 
     standard.
       ``It got my entire crop,'' lamented Winkel, a second-
     generation grower working the land he took over from his 
     father 16 years ago.
       ``There will be zero income from this year's crop and at 
     least half of the expenses are already in it,'' said Winkel, 
     a married father of two who isn't sure the business will 
     survive the loss.
       Apple farmers in Van Buren and Berrien counties in 
     southwestern Michigan are hoping to persuade the Federal 
     Government to declare their farms disaster areas, entitling 
     them to aid farm officials say may be a last lifeline for 
     some growers.
       ``The problem here is devastating,'' said Al Almy, Michigan 
     Farm Bureau's director of public policy and commodities. ``It 
     could put some of the very best growers right out of 
     business.''
       Fire blight is a bacterial disease affecting primarily 
     apple and pear trees that is spread by insects and often 
     enters blooms or leaves damaged by wind or hail. It destroys 
     tissue it infects, killing blossoms and shoots, sometimes 
     progressing into the tree and its roots. Badly infected trees 
     look like they have been burned.
       Strains of fire blight that have become resistant to 
     antibiotic sprays have slowly spread in area orchards, but a 
     May 18 storm that produced hail and high winds is blamed with 
     sparking the huge outbreak.
       Mark Longstroth, district horticulture and marketing agent 
     with the MSU Extension, estimates some 300 to 400 growers and 
     27,000 acres of apples will be affected by the blight. The 
     major damage is in Van Buren and Berrien counties, but fire 
     blight has appeared in Allegan, Cass and Kalamazoo counties 
     too, officials say.
       Officials are still evaluating losses but say they may 
     reach about $10 million in the two counties. This year's 
     losses will be multiplied in future years with the loss of 
     production from trees that are killed.
       ``This is one of the worst epidemics we have ever seen,'' 
     said Alan Jones, a professor of plant pathology at Michigan 
     State University. Jones, a fire blight expert with MSU for 30 
     years, said this outbreak dwarfs the worst epidemic he had 
     seen previously, in 1991.
       The Michigan Farm Bureau on Wednesday invited media and 
     representatives from the area's congressional delegation to 
     tour orchards from Lawrence in Van Buren County to Watervliet 
     in Berrien County. The caravan stopped at some orchards to 
     inspect the damages, but in most cases a drive by acre after 
     acre of brown orchards was all that was needed to see the 
     devastation.
       At an orchard near Watervliet, dozens of apple growers 
     waited to meet with representatives from the Farm Bureau, 
     USDA, Michigan Department of Agriculture, MSU Extension and 
     other agencies. It was partly a show for the invited media, 
     including crews from several newspapers and television 
     stations, and a show of force to representatives of the 
     Congressional delegations.
       Staffers for U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and Reps. Fred Upton, 
     Nick Smith, Vernon Ehlers, and Peter Hoekstra were on hand 
     Wednesday, and Michigan Farm Bureau President Jack Laurie 
     urged growers to push them for disaster assistance.
       ``Levin's office is the one we've got to lean on, this guy 
     here,'' one grower said to others, as they waited for another 
     farmer to finish bending the ear of Levin's staffer.
       If a disaster is declared, farmers will be eligible for 
     low-interest loans to cover losses and replace trees. Federal 
     assistance to replace weather-damaged trees doesn't cover

[[Page 15592]]

     fire blight, but officials from the Farm Bureau and other 
     assembled agencies said political pressure should be applied 
     to get that coverage.
       A state emergency board will be convened to evaluate losses 
     in the affected counties, then ask Gov. John Engler to 
     request federal disaster relief from the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture.
       ``I think we have seen enough to know this is very 
     widespread, this is very dramatic,'' said John Sarno, 
     district director for USDA Farm Services Agency, who took his 
     camera along on Wednesday's tour. ``There are going to be 
     great losses.''
       Any help would be welcomed by Winkel, who says he may have 
     to find a second job and whose wife may have to go from 
     working as a part-time nurse to working full time. His 100 
     acres of trees, which last year produced about 73,000 bushels 
     of apples and $300,000 in revenue, will yield nothing this 
     year.
       ``The whole future of the southwest Michigan fruit industry 
     is at stake here,'' said Tom Butler, head of the Michigan 
     Processing Apple Growers. ``A lot of growers are not going to 
     be able to stay in business until some serious help comes 
     along.''
       The fire blight will have no discernible impact on 
     consumers because of a strong supply of apples nationwide, 
     Butler said

  Mr. LEVIN. I am particularly grateful to Senator Susan Collins whose 
support has been essential. I am also pleased with the many bipartisan 
cosponsors who have supported this legislation.
  This amendment is similar to legislation which recently passed the 
other body as part of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend 
Senator Levin in offering an amendment to provide much needed relief 
for apple and potato producers across America. Senator Levin and I 
share a deep concern for these farmers, who have endured such 
unexpected hardship over the past year. I am grateful for having the 
opportunity to work with my friend from Michigan on this critical 
matter.
  Over the past three years, America's apple growers have lost more 
than $760 million according to U.S. Department of Agriculture 
statistics. Market conditions, beyond the control of our farmers, and 
unfair trade practices have contributed significantly to these loses. 
There has been a reduction in demand for U.S. apples in much of the 
world because of poor economic conditions in foreign markets. The 
domestic demand for apples has been affected by conditions abroad as 
well. With dimished demand oversees, we have seen an increase in the 
foreign supply of apples in our domestic markets. The U.S. Department 
of Commerce and the International Trade Commission recently found that 
our producers have been victimized by unfairly priced imports of 
Chinese apple juice concentrate.
  Unusual weather also has hurt our potato and apple producers. The 
Maine Pomological Society, a group that primarily represents apple 
producers in my State, reports that a summer-long drought, coupled with 
the heavy winds and rains of Hurricane Floyd in the fall, had a 
disastrous impact on the quality of apples produced in Maine last year. 
On average, only 49% of Maine's 1999 apple crop could be sold at the 
``fancy grade'' quality. To provide my colleagues with a sense of what 
this means, I would note that in 1998, 78% of the apples produced in 
Maine were labeled as fancy grade.
  Maine potato farmers also found themselves victims of weather-related 
disasters in 1999. In Maine, some potato farmers found their fields 
covered in as much as 15 inches of water following the drenching that 
accompanied Hurricane Floyd last fall. Because many of Maine's farmers 
leave their crop in storage over the winter, we did not realize the 
full extent of the damage caused by Floyd's rains until this spring. 
Mr. President, potato farmers pour their hearts and souls into their 
fields. It is profoundly disheartening to hear from a farmer who has 
lost an entire crop that took many months of hard work to cultivate.
  The amendment Senator Levin and I offer today provides much-needed 
assistance to both potato and apple producers. Under our proposal, the 
Secretary of Agriculture would allocate $100 million in market loss 
assistance payments to our nation's apple producers. The market loss 
payments authorized by our amendment will help thousands of apple 
growers from Washington State to Michigan to Maine survive the losses 
they have endured due to conditions beyond their control. This 
amendment directs a modest amount of funds to producers who have 
received very little of the nearly $15 billion in emergency agriculture 
spending that we have passed this fiscal year.
  Our amendment also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
$15 million in quality loss payments to apple and potato producers who 
suffered losses as a result of a hurricane or other weather-related 
disaster. This assistance will be important to those farmers who were 
unable to produce their finest product because of adverse weather 
conditions.
  Mr. President, the provisions of our amendment are similar to 
language in the House-passed version of the FY 2001 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill. The provisions recognize that potato and apple 
producers, like other farmers across the country, are subject to the 
vagaries of international markets and the weather. I ask my colleagues 
to join us in providing assistance to our apple and potato producers in 
their time of need.
  If anyone questions the emergency nature of this request, I would 
refer them to a news story that ran on the evening news in Maine this 
past Tuesday. The segment focused on a long-time apple grower from 
Alfred, Maine. The grower, with much regret, has come to the conclusion 
that after thirty-five years this will have to be his family's last 
crop. The dwindling profits are not enough incentive for the next 
generation of the family to contend with the government regulations and 
uncertainty that comes with running an apple orchard. I encourage my 
colleagues who missed this broadcast from Maine to read the story in 
Tuesday's New York Times about the hardships being endured by apple 
growers in New York who watched hail storms this spring wipe out much 
of their crops. This amendment and the aid it represents is certainly 
an emergency to these producers.
  Mr. President, the federal government must be a partner in our 
farmer's efforts to feed America and much of the world. The Levin-
Collins amendment ensures that our apple and potato producers get the 
help they need to overcome the difficulties of the past year and 
continue to produce a quality product. I urge my colleagues to support 
our amendment, and I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 3933

(Purpose: To provide relief for apple growers whose crops have suffered 
            extensive crop damage as a result of fireblight)

       On page 2, lines 16 through 23, strike all after ``(b)'' 
     and insert,
       ``Quality Loss Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--In 
     addition to the assistance provided under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall use $60,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to make payments to apple producers, and 
     potato producers, that suffered quality losses to the 1999 
     and 2000 crop of potatoes and apples, respectively, due to, 
     or related to, a 1999 or 2000 hurricane, fireblight or other 
     weather related disaster.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3965

  (Purpose: To ensure that nursery stock producers receive emergency 
   financial assistance for nursery stock losses caused by Hurricane 
                                 Irene)

       At the apropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.--In using amounts made available under section 
     801(a) of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 
     (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 106-78), or under the matter 
     under the heading ``crop loss assistance'' under the heading 
     ``Commodity Credit Corporation Fund'' of H.R. 3425 of the 
     106th Congress, as enacted by section 1001(a)(5) of Public 
     Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1536, 1501A-289), to provide emergency 
     financial assistance to producers on a farm that have 
     incurred losses in a 1999 crop due to a disaster, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall consider nursery stock losses 
     caused by Hurricane Irene on October 16 and 17, 1999, to be 
     losses to the 1999 crop of nursery stock: Provided, That the 
     entire amount necessary to carry out this section shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for the entire amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of

[[Page 15593]]

     the request as an emergency requirement under the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     900 et seq.), is transmitted by the President to Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount necessary to carry 
     out this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Mack and I offer this amendment 
that will correct an injustice being done to nursery growers in south 
Florida impacted by Hurricane Irene in October of 1999.
  On October 15, Florida was hit with Hurricane Irene.
  Following closely on the heels of Hurricane Floyd, a storm that 
caused a disaster declaration in 13 states, Hurricane Irene dropped 
over nine inches of rainfall on average across Palm Beach, Broward, and 
Miami-Dade Counties.
  Three-day rainfall totals at specific measuring sites throughout this 
area ranged between 10.88 and 17.47 inches.
  Nineteen Florida counties received a major disaster declaration.
  At the height of the storm, more than 1 million people lost power.
  Agriculture losses from Hurricane Irene totaled over $438 million.
  In total, seven deaths were attributed to Irene's visit to the 
Florida coastline.
  Last year, Congress specifically provided $186 million in 
``additional resources for damage caused by hurricanes and other 
natural disasters in Florida and other states'' under Title I--
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of the FY 2000 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act.
  This crop loss assistance was provided in addition to the $1.2 
billion previously allocated under the Crop Disaster Program to respond 
to farmers who suffered losses due to ``adverse weather and related 
conditions.''
  In executing this program, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made the 
determination that nursery, unlike other Florida crops damaged by 
Hurricane Irene, will not be eligible for Crop Disaster Program 
assistance.
  FSA indicates that nursery is ineligible because the program is 
limited to losses in the 1999 crop year, and the hurricane damage 
occurred after the FSA-set 2000 crop year had begun.
  The hurricane damage occurred on October 16-17, 1999, and the 2000 
nursery crop year, according to FSA, began on October 1, 1999.
  By all accounts, the FSA's crop year determination was made on an 
arbitrary basis as nursery does not have a traditional crop year and 
crops are grown on a year-round basis.
  By contrast, the Risk Management Agency had a similar problem and 
made a special dispensation for the nursery crop year to provide 
eligibility for hurricane losses under the federal crop insurance 
program.
  The Florida delegation has made a concerted attempt to work closely 
with the Department since the hurricane damage occurred.
  On December 9, 1999 FSA representatives briefed the Florida 
delegation on disaster assistance available to Florida farmers, and we 
were informed that Crop Disaster Program assistance would be available 
to respond to hurricane-related farm losses in Florida.
  Today, it is still not available.
  The amendment we offer today will ensure that nursery stock losses 
due to Hurricane Irene will be eligible for relief under the Crop 
Disaster Program.
  Mr. President, the intent of Congress was clear--that losses in 
Florida due to natural disasters should be covered by the Crop Disaster 
Program.
  I hope that my colleagues will support our amendment that will 
provide clear direction to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 
ensure that its actions meet the intent of Congress.
  I urge its adoption.


                           amendment no. 3966

 (Purpose: To permit the enrollment of an additional 100,000 acres in 
                     the wetlands reserve program)

       On page 85, after line 8, of Division B, as modified, add 
     the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding section 1237(b)(1) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)(1)), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may permit the enrollment of not to exceed 
     1,075,000 acres in the wetlands reserve program: Provided, 
     That not withstanding section 11 of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i), such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended, shall provided 
     through the Commodity Credit Corporation in fiscal year 2000 
     for technical assistance activities performed by any agency 
     of the Department of Agriculture in carrying out this 
     section. Provided further, That the entire amount necessary 
     to carry out this section shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for the entire amount 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3967

       On page 85, after line 8 of Division B, as modified, add:
       Sec.   . In addition to other compensation paid by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary shall compensate or 
     otherwise seek to make whole from funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation, not to exceed $4,000,000, the owners of 
     all sheep destroyed from flocks under the Secretary's 
     declarations of July 14, 2000 for lost income, or other 
     business interruption losses, due to actions of the Secretary 
     with respect to such sheep: Provided, That the entire amount 
     necessary to carry out this section shall be available only 
     to the extent that an official budget request for the entire 
     amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3968

   (Purpose: To provide emergency funding for the Grain Inspection, 
      Packers, and Stockyards Administration for completion of a 
                   biotechnology reference facility)

       On page 76, after lines 18, of Division B, as modified, 
     insert the following:

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

       For an additional amount for the Grain Inspection, Packers 
     and Stockyards Administration, $600,000 for completion of a 
     biotechnology reference facility: Provided, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent an official 
     budget request for $600,000, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement in 
     accordance with section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3969

  (Purpose: To ensure that growers who experienced crop losses due to 
            citrus canker receive appropriate compensation)

       On page 83, line 5, strike the following: ``; and (e) 
     compensate commercial producers for losses due to citrus 
     canker''.
       On page 85, after line 8, insert the following:
       Sec.  . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act) 
     the Secretary of agriculture shall use not more than 
     $40,000,000 of Commodity Credit Corporation funds for a 
     cooperative program with the state of Florida to replace 
     commercial trees removed to control citrus canker and to 
     compensate for lost production: Provided, That the entire 
     amount necessary to carry out this section shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for the 
     entire amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement under the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. et 
     seq.), is transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount necessary to carry out this 
     section is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)).

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, members of the Senate, I rise before you 
today with my colleague, Senator Mack, to offer an amendment to the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill on behalf of the Florida citrus 
industry.
  Mr. President, if ever there was an industry in crisis, this is it.
  Since last year, the Florida citrus industry has been besieged by the 
ravages of citrus canker.
  Citrus canker is a disease that spreads rapidly through the air to 
infect grove after grove after grove.
  There is no cure.
  Once a tree becomes infected, it must be burned to the ground to 
prevent further spreading.

[[Page 15594]]

  As part of an ongoing effort to eradicate citrus canker, the Animal 
Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a regulation 
requiring the destruction of all trees within a 1,900 foot radius of an 
infected tree.
  The result is that hundreds of healthy trees are burned to the 
ground.
  This government regulation is critical to eradication of citrus 
canker, but it increases the number of trees that are destroyed.
  To date, over 1,500 acres of limes and oranges, have been burned.
  In response, both the Governor and the Secretary of Agriculture 
declared a state of emergency in Florida due to the citrus canker 
outbreak.
  Once destroyed, it takes between three and four years for a citrus 
tree to reach maturity and produce its maximum capacity of fruit.
  The growers whose healthy trees are destroyed by the federal 
government are robbed of income today and income for the next three to 
four years.
  I believe that the destruction of the healthy trees in accordance 
with federal regulation is in effect, a ``federal taking'' of private 
property for which Florida citrus producers should be compensated.
  The Appropriations bill we are considering today provides the 
Secretary with authority to spend funds on compensation for growers who 
experience losses due to citrus canker.
  Our amendment would modify this language to mirror language in the 
House-passed Agriculture Appropriations bill which provides up to $40 
million for compensation of growers for citrus canker losses.
  Our amendment ensures that Florida citrus growers whose trees are 
destroyed as a result of federal regulation are able to receive 
appropriate compensation.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in providing much needed 
assistance to an industry besieged by disease and severely impacted by 
a federal regulation which, while well-intentioned and important to the 
eradication of this disease, robs citrus growers of income from healthy 
trees for a three to four year period.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3970

       On page 76, strike lines 6 through 18 and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $59,400,000 to be available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That this amount shall be used for the Boll weevil 
     eradication program for cost share purposes or for debt 
     retirement for active eradication zones: Provided, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent on 
     official budget request for $59,400,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     such Act.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, during year 2000, the National Boll 
Weevil Eradication Program (BWEP) will have approximately 6.8 million 
acres under active eradication and treatments will be initiated on an 
additional 832,000 acres, bringing the total acreage in active 
eradication to 7.65 million acres. The states participating in 
treatments currently are: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, 
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
  By 2001 another 2 million acres will begin eradication, and at the 
same time, eradication will be completed on about 1 million acres. Thus 
the total acreage in active eradication in 2001 will increase to 8.8 
million acres. The peak year for the high costs to the participants of 
the eradication program will be in 2001.
  Initially the BWEP operated on a 70/30 cost-share basis with the 
growers providing 70 percent through a pre-acre self-assessment 
approved by referendum and 30 percent provided through annual federal 
appropriations. Programs in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia, Arizona and portions of Alabama and Florida were completed 
with a 70/30 cost-share. As participating acreage rapidly expanded 
across the cotton belt, the federal cost-share declined from 30 percent 
to about 4 percent in fiscal year 2000.
  With the problems American agriculture is still facing with low 
commodity prices, droughts, and flooding, the burden of this program at 
a cost-share rate of 96/4 is jeopardizing the participation in the Boll 
Weevil Eradication Program nationwide.
  This amendment, which I am offering today to the Fiscal Year 2001 
Agricultural Appropriations bill, increases the Animal, Plant and 
Health Inspection Service's salaries and expenses by $59,400,000. This 
amendment includes an emergency declaration which requires the 
President to request the full amount before the monies are 
appropriated.
  This additional appropriation will enable APHIS to increase federal 
funding for is to increase the Boll Weevil Eradication Program by 
$59,400,000 for 2000. This amount is needed to provide a thirty percent 
cost-share to farmers participating in the program. With this 
appropriation, farmers will be able to fully participate in the 
eradication program without putting another financial strain on their 
farm income.


                           amendment no. 3971

    (Purpose: To provide financial assistance to the State of South 
  Carolina in capitalizing the South Carolina Grain Dealers Guaranty 
                                 Fund)

       At the appropriate place in chapter 1 of title I of 
     Division B, insert the following:
       For an additional amount for the Secretary of Agriculture 
     to provide financial assistance to the State of South 
     Carolina in capitalizing the South Carolina Grain Dealers 
     Guaranty Fund, $2,500,000: Provided, That, these funds shall 
     only be available if the State of South Carolina provides an 
     equal amount to the South Carolina Grain Dealers Guaranty 
     Fund: Provided further, That the entire amount necessary to 
     carry out this section shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for the entire amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3972

(Purpose: To restrict the use of funds to provide certain conservation 
 assistance and authorize a transfer of funds for the Wildlife Habitat 
                           Incentive Program)

       On page 85, after line 8, of Division B, as modified, add 
     the following:
       Sec. (a). None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to 
     carry out section 211 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act 
     of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 3830 note; Public Law 106-224) unless--
       (1) the Secretary permits funds made available under 
     section 211(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
     2000 to be used to provide financial or technical assistance 
     to farmers and ranchers for the purposes described in section 
     211(b) of that Act; and
       (2) notwithstanding section 387(c) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 
     3836a(c)), the Secretary permits funds made available under 
     section 211 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 
     (16 U.S.C. 3830 note; Public Law 106-224) to be used to 
     provide additional funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive 
     Program established under that section 387 in such sums as 
     the Secretary considers necessary to carry out that Program.
       (b) The entire amount necessary to carry out this section 
     shall be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request for the entire amount, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement 
     as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress: Provided, That the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3973

   (Purpose: To provide for assistance for emergency haying and feed 
                  operations in the State of Alabama)

       In section 1107, after the first proviso insert ``Provided 
     further, That of the $450,000,000 amount, the Secretary shall 
     use not less than $5,000,000 to provide assistance for 
     emergency haying and feed operations in the State of 
     Alabama:''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3974

      (Purpose: To provide emergency funding to the Department of 
           Agriculture's Rural Community Facilities program)

       On page 40, line 17, after the period, insert the 
     following:

[[Page 15595]]

       ``For an additional amount for the rural community 
     advancement program under subtitle E of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009 et seq.), 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, to provide 
     loans under the community facility direct and guaranteed 
     loans program and grants under the community facilities grant 
     program under paragraphs (1) and (19), respectively, of 
     section 306(a) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)) with respect to 
     areas in the State of North Carolina subject to a declaration 
     of a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 
     as a result of Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Dennis, or 
     Hurricane Irene: Provided, That the $50,000,000 shall be 
     available only to the extent that the President submits to 
     Congress an official budget request for a specific dollar 
     amount that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement for the purposes of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 
     U.S.C. 900 et seq.) Provided further, That the $50,000,000 is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement under 
     section 251 (b)(2)(A) of the Balance Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3975

(Purpose: To make emergency financial assistance available to producers 
 on a farm that have incurred losses in a 2000 crop due to a disaster 
  and to producers of specialty crops that incurred losses during the 
                   1999 crop year due to a disaster)

       At the end of chapter 1 of title I of division B, add the 
     following:
       Sec. 1108. Crop Loss Assistance.--(a) In General.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary 
     of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (not to exceed 
     $450,000,000) to make emergency financial assistance 
     available to producers on a farm that have incurred losses in 
     a 2000 crop due to a disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 1102 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
     Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 105-
     277), including using the same loss thresholds as were used 
     in administering that section.
       (c) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may 
     be made available for losses due to damaging weather or 
     related condition (including losses due to scab, sclerotinia, 
     aflotoxin, and other crop diseases) associated with crops 
     that are, as determined by the Secretary--
       (1) quantity losses (including quantity losses as a result 
     of quality losses);
       (2) quality losses; or
       (3) severe economic losses.
       (d) Crops Covered.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     applicable to losses for all crops, as determined by the 
     Secretary, due to disasters.
       (e) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize 
     producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (f) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--The Secretary may use 
     such sums as are necessary of funds made available under this 
     section to make livestock indemnity payments to producers on 
     a farm that have incurred losses during calendar year 2000 
     for livestock losses due to a disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (g) Hay Losses.--The Secretary may use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds made available under this section to make 
     payments to producers on a farm that have incurred losses of 
     hay stock during calendar year 2000 due to a disaster, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (h) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
       Sec. 1109. Specialty Crops.--(a) In General.--The Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary of funds 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make emergency 
     financial assistance available to producers of fruits, 
     vegetables, and other specialty crops, as determined by the 
     Secretary, that incurred losses during the 1999 crop year due 
     to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may 
     be made available for losses due to a disaster associated 
     with specialty crops that are, as determined by the 
     Secretary--
       (1) quantity losses;
       (2) quality losses; or
       (3) severe economic losses.
       (c) Eligibility.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     applicable to losses for all specialty crops, as determined 
     by the Secretary, due to disasters.
       (d) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize 
     producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (e) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3976

       On page 85 after line 8 of Division B, as modified, insert:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall make a payment in the amount 
     of $7,200,000 to the State of Hawaii from the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for assistance to agricultural 
     transportation cooperative in Hawaii, the members of which 
     are eligible to participate in the Farm Service Agency 
     administered Commodity Loan Program and have suffered 
     extraordinary market losses due to unprecedented low prices.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments, (Nos. 3457, 3933, 3965, 3966, 3967, 3968, 3969, 3970, 
3971, 3972, 3973, 3974, 3975, and 3976), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask consent that it not be in order in the 
Senate, for the remainder of the 106th Congress, to consider any bill 
or amendment that raises the level of emergency spending for 
agriculture above the level contained in this Agriculture 
appropriations bill as of the adoption of the above described 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens for agreeing to 
this amendment. I realize that there are legitimate emergencies, but I 
remind my colleagues that in the last 2 years we have had $16.6 billion 
of agricultural emergencies. This amendment does not guarantee that we 
are not going to have more. But it certainly strengthens the ability of 
those who want to draw the line and say that enough is enough.
  So I support this agreement. I thank Senator Stevens and Senator 
Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens as well. I thank 
Senator Cochran and others who helped craft this agreement--Senator 
Kohl. Because the fact is, there are real disasters and real 
emergencies. In my State where, on June 12, 20 inches of rain fell in 
36 hours, 1 week later 8 inches of rain fell in 6 hours. It gave us 
this headline in the biggest paper in our State: ``Swamped.'' It says 
it all. A disaster of stunning proportions costing hundreds of millions 
of dollars in the major city of our State--1.7 million acres of land, 
of cropland, devastated. This is an emergency. It is a disaster. It 
must be addressed.
  Through this amendment we will begin the process of healing. I thank 
all those who participated in this agreement.
  I do want to answer the Senator from Texas when he says we have had 
$14 billion of emergencies in the last 2 years. The underlying reason 
is a failure----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and I thank very much my colleague 
from West Virginia.
  The reason we have had to have substantial emergency spending is 
because of the failure of the last farm bill. The last farm bill 
represents unilateral disarmament. While our major competitors, the 
Europeans, are spending $50

[[Page 15596]]

billion a year to support their producers, we, on average, were 
spending $10 billion under the previous farm bill. We cut it in half on 
the notion that the Europeans would follow our good example.
  What a foolish tactic. We would never do that in a military 
confrontation, engage in unilateral disarmament. But it is precisely 
what we did with respect to a trade confrontation.
  Agriculture has been in deep trouble and we have responded. Congress, 
the administration, and we thank our colleagues, for that response. But 
now we have been hit by unprecedented natural disasters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. I want to get the 
Senate back to order.
  I ask colleagues take conversations off the floor and take them to 
the Cloakroom. Please take your conversations to the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Again, I thank the courtesy of the Chair.
  We have been hit by unprecedented natural disasters. This body has 
been generous in responding, whether it was in North Dakota or New 
Mexico. I just hope we do not ever lose that generosity of spirit in 
this country because none of us can predict who might be hit next.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for working on 
this with me and the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee and all those who helped put an agreement together, including 
Ted Stevens, Senator Stevens, and those who helped him. I really 
believe the discussion tonight was a very good one. Whether or not it 
means anything in the weeks and months to come, who knows? But, 
frankly, I am fully aware in that list there are some items that are 
really natural disasters, or disasters of one sort or another that we 
would compensate for. I just believe that at some point or another in 
the field of agriculture, and on the agricultural bill, at some point 
in time adding emergencies has to kind of end. I submit there would be 
more than this if it would be 2 weeks from now when the agricultural 
bill came up.
  That is my point. I really have a lot of faith and confidence in Thad 
Cochran and his minority ranking member. But I frankly believe sooner 
or later we ought to just face up and add to the budget and not 
continue to add emergencies when they are not emergencies. And 
certainly many of them were. I did not have a chance to look at it 
thoroughly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I regret to tell my friend from Texas--I have told him 
informally, but I will tell him formally now--we have a staggering 
disaster going on in Alaska right now. It is the total collapse of the 
fish runs in the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers that sustain a substantial 
number of our native villages. If this is not in this bill now, it 
might come in in conference, but it is going to come up sometime before 
this year is out. I just want to put the Senate on notice. I was 
talking here about the agriculture items that are in this bill now. But 
I do not feel bound not to represent my State later, in terms of trying 
to protect these people who live in rural Alaska.
  I talked today to James Lee Witt who is the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency Director. He told me the President had asked him to 
work with all existing agencies to try to find out what could be done 
under existing law and with existing funds to deal with a disaster that 
is taking place as we speak. We will not know, probably, until we come 
back in September, what will be required. But we do expect to have some 
substantial problems with this disaster within the coming 5 or 6 weeks.
  I hope my friend understands what I am saying to him. In this 
agreement we just made, that, to me, does not include the fisheries 
disaster that is going on now in Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank Senators Cochran and Kohl for staying with 
this issue for those of us who represent States with true disasters, 
true emergencies, that were not represented in the bill as it came to 
the Senate. We have had the worst outbreak of fire blight in our apple 
industry in the history of the State of Michigan. Our Governor has 
requested that Secretary of Agriculture Glickman grant a disaster 
designation for seven counties in Michigan that have been afflicted by 
fire blight.
  I ask unanimous consent that this request be printed in the Record 
along with two newspaper articles.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                State of Michigan,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                       Lansing, MI, June 30, 2000.

 Governor Requests Disaster Designation for Fruit Growers in South and 
                           Southwest Michigan

       Governor John Engler announced today that he has requested 
     a United States Department of Agriculture Disaster 
     Designation for fruit growers in South and Southeast 
     Michigan.
       Fruit trees in that region suffered from a very severe 
     storm that brought hail, high winds and heavy rain on May 18.
       That severe weather caused small wounds and scars on the 
     leaves, limbs, and fruit of apple, cherry, apricot, plum, 
     pear and peach trees. In the case of apples and pears, these 
     wounds allowed the bacteria known as fire blight to enter the 
     tree. This bacteria quickly infects the limbs, killing the 
     leaves and fruit, eventually making its way into the roots, 
     killing the entire tree.
       It is estimated that over 2,000 acres of apple trees in the 
     counties of Allegan, Berrien, Branch, Cass, Hillsdale, 
     Kalamazoo and Van Buren are dead or dying, with another 5,400 
     acres showing severe symptoms of this insidious disease. This 
     is the area to be covered by Governor Engler's disaster 
     designation request.
                                  ____

                                                State of Michigan,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                       Lansing, MI, June 29, 2000.
     Hon. Dan Glickman,
     Secretary of Agriculture, Administration Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Glickman: A natural disaster has occurred in 
     Michigan that will result in production and physical losses 
     in fruit crops and fruit trees for the year 2000. Consistent 
     with USDA policy, I am hereby alerting you within the 
     required 90 day time period that such a condition exists.
       The month of May was wet and humid throughout Southwest 
     Michigan. More than five inches of rain fell in May alone and 
     15 days in May saw relative humidity above 80%. On top of 
     this weather, a severe thunderstorm hit the area on May 18, 
     2000, bringing high winds very heavy rain, and hail. This 
     storm caused severe damage to fruit trees and the fruit crop 
     in the region. This damage was exacerbated when a bacterium, 
     fire blight, took hold in apple and pear trees. This fire 
     blight infection was directly related to the May 18, 2000, 
     storm inasmuch as the hard rain and hail scarred and wounded 
     the leaves, limbs and fruit of apple and pear trees, creating 
     an avenue for the fire blight disease to enter the trees.
       The following counties were affected: Allegan, Berrien, 
     Branch, Cass, Hillsdale, Kalamzaoo, Van Buren.
       This disaster affected apples, sweet and tart cherries, 
     apricots, plums, pears and peaches. Only apples and pears 
     were affected by the resulting fire blight.
       Damage assessment information will be forwarded to your 
     office by the Michigan Farm Service Agency as soon as it 
     available. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Engler,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. LEVIN. We are always the No. 2 or No. 3 state in terms of apple 
production. Every year we vie with New York for who comes in second 
after the State of Washington. But our apple industry has suffered 
major devastation in southwestern Michigan. We have had the largest 
problem with fire blight in the history of our State. It is a true 
disaster. It seems to me some people just look at the whole and ignore 
the parts. They also have a responsibility of looking at the parts. Our 
part was a disaster which we addressed in the form of an amendment 
providing relief on June 19. Senator Collins and 12 bipartisan 
cosponsors joined this amendment. I thank them very much for their 
assistance. We cover potatoes as well as apples because there has been 
an honest to goodness disaster emergency amongst potato growers as 
well.

[[Page 15597]]

  I once again, thank the managers of this bill. I know how difficult 
this is. Those of us who represent States that had emergencies that 
were not reflected in the bill, as it came to the Senate, counted on 
the managers and our colleagues to do justice for our emergencies in 
the same way this bill, as it came to the Senate, addressed emergencies 
in other States.
  We are deeply grateful to the managers. We thank Senator Stevens and 
others who were able to work out this agreement so our true disaster 
could be taken care of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and 
the Senator from Wisconsin, and others, including the Senator from 
Alaska and my colleagues who have agreed to a compromise.
  The history of disaster aid in this Congress is well over a century 
old. This is not a new issue. For well over a century, Congress has 
dealt with the issue of disasters that have occurred in some parts of 
this country.
  I am proud of supporting disaster aid for areas of this country that 
suffer earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, floods, and tornadoes. In the 
case of the fires that recently ravaged and injured so many people and 
their property in New Mexico, I am proud to say that I wanted us to 
help them, and we did. I am proud to say I helped the folks in Los 
Angeles who were flattened by earthquakes, and the folks in Texas who 
have been injured by drought.
  It is one of those areas of public spending where I say it is the 
best this country has to offer. When a region of this country, when its 
people are flat on their backs from causes that they could not control, 
this Congress extends its hand and says to them: You are not alone. We 
want to help you. We have a long tradition of doing that, and I am 
proud of that tradition.
  In North Dakota, as my colleague indicated, late one night in June, 
several thunderstorms converged together and then did not move. In a 
State that gets 17 inches of rainfall in a year, in one spot they 
received 18 to 20 inches in 36 hours. Think of that. About a week and a 
half later, the Red River Valley, land that is dead flat, flat as a 
table top, received 8 inches of rain in 6 hours. They were flooded. Up 
to 1.7 million acres of farmland that people planted in the spring with 
the sweat of their brow and risked their money to plant were either 
destroyed or severely damaged.
  We ask Congress to recognize that this, too, is a natural disaster 
for those producers and people who live in those areas. That is what 
this is about. None of us in this Chamber should ever be bashful about 
saying there are people in need in this country, and when that need 
exists because of causes they did not control or could not control--
fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods--then we should respond.
  It represents the very best impulse, in my judgment, of this body. 
That is what this debate is about. From our standpoint, it is 
especially about family farmers. As I said earlier today, they are some 
of the best in this country. They risk their money. They hope for a 
good crop. So many things are beyond their control. Then they discover 
that late one night a hailstorm comes through, and the crops are 
devastated; or a flood inundates their crops; or a drought dries them 
up; or the insects come and eat them out; or disease comes and their 
crop is gone. That is what this is about.
  Mr. President, those tonight who worked for a solution to add some 
emergency funding to this piece of legislation have done those in need 
in this country a service. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are getting to a point where we are 
winding down on this bill. We have several more amendments, probably 
less than five. Some of those will be disposed of with the managers' 
good work. I think we should take a few minutes to see where we are. 
Therefore, 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.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 3980

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3980.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration of 
this amendment, which is not on the unanimous consent----
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
know a lot of Senators on both sides are wondering about the 
proceedings at this time. I understand there are at least a couple of 
amendments that may take a few minutes. And then, of course, we are not 
sure at this point whether they would require a recorded vote or not, 
and then final passage.
  We still hope to get an agreement that would allow us to go to the 
marriage penalty tonight, and have an hour of debate on that, and then 
continue on that tomorrow. And beyond that, we will have to get an 
agreement worked out.
  I urge my colleagues to, if they will, agree to time limits and 
cooperate with the managers as much as they can. We need to finish this 
bill in the next 30 minutes, if we can, and get an agreement on how we 
proceed for the rest of tonight, tomorrow, and Monday.
  So I withdraw my reservation. And I thank Senator Durbin for allowing 
me to do that at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is in order.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the effect of the provision prohibiting amendment 
         of part 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations)

       In section 3102, after the first sentence insert the 
     following: ``This section does not limit the authority of the 
     Secretary to promulgate final rules, or to revise or amend 
     subpart 3809 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, so as 
     to require full financial assurance of reclamation of mining 
     sites to protect the taxpayers from the actions of hardrock 
     mining operations that cause damage to or destruction of 
     public land; to prevent environmental destruction that unduly 
     threatens fish or wildlife habitat; and to prevent pollution 
     that threatens public health or the environment.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, section 3102 of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill does not address the production of food and fiber 
in America. It does not address any jurisdiction of the Department of 
Agriculture. It is a provision which has been added to this bill which 
relates directly to hard rock mining in the United States, which is 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
  I might say, parenthetically, I found it very interesting listening 
to this debate on the Ag appropriations bill, and considering some of 
the comments that have been made on the Senate floor in the past year 
about limiting the subject matter of amendments and the substance of 
legislation.
  If we can consider an Amtrak amendment on the Ag appropriations bill, 
and if we can consider an amendment on hard rock mining on the Ag 
appropriations bill, then those who come before us and say we have to 
have purity in the amendments we are offering and considering on the 
bill should remember this particular debate.
  I was surprised to find that a point of order on a motion to strike, 
based on that point of order, would not stand because of what I 
consider to be a very thin connection to some language in the House 
appropriations bill. But the Parliamentarian advised me of that. I 
understand that is going to be the rule of the day around here. I 
suppose that is what we will play by. I am sure each side will find an 
advantage and disadvantage associated with that interpretation.
  Allow me to address the amendment before us, and to try to do it in a 
very concise way, knowing that everyone has waited a long time. I have 
waited for 8\1/2\ hours to offer this amendment.
  Let me say at the outset, we are dealing with the hard rock mining 
industry. An effort is being made, with

[[Page 15598]]

the language in this Agriculture appropriations bill, to stop the 
Department of the Interior from issuing new regulations to make sure 
that this industry follows the best practices to protect the taxpayers 
of this country and the environment.
  To put it in perspective, just this May the Environmental Protection 
Agency released its Toxics Release Inventory report. It identified the 
hard rock mining industry in the United States as our Nation's largest 
toxic polluter.
  The mining industry released 3.5 billion pounds of toxic pollution in 
1998. I will repeat that. The mining industry released 3.5 billion 
pounds of toxic pollution in 1998. Almost half of all of the toxic 
pollution in America comes from this industry, which is being protected 
by this amendment in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  The U.S. Bureau of Mines has identified 12,000 miles of American 
streams and 180,000 acres of American lakes polluted by mining. The EPA 
has listed 27 hard rock mines as Superfund sites. It is time for us to 
update the 19-year-old regulations that protect public lands managed by 
the BLM from the environmental impact of hard rock mining.
  These regulations, commonly referred to as 3809 regulations, help the 
BLM comply with Federal land policy. They direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to ``take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue 
degradation on the federal lands.''
  Since these regulations were first promulgated in 1981, the whole 
hard rock mining industry has changed in America. New technologies have 
allowed the industry to expand tenfold. New exploration techniques have 
resulted in capabilities unknown 20 years go. Larger excavation 
equipment allows ores to be mined from larger and deeper pits and has 
made open-pit mining feasible in areas where it would not have been 
feasible before.
  Just as the mining industry has modernized, so too should the 
regulations that protect the environment and the taxpayers. Those who 
would put this amendment in this bill are stopping the modernization of 
those regulations designed to protect public lands, the environment, 
and the taxpayers.
  As I explain one aspect of this, you will understand that the 
provision in this particular section of the Ag bill will result in 
literally hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, 
of liability to the taxpayers of today and tomorrow.
  The need to update these regulations has been recognized a long time. 
The BLM established a task force in 1989 to look them over. President 
Bush expected it to be done in short order, and it still has not 
happened.
  There has been a steady stream of reports. This is, as best we can 
tell--this rider introduced by Senators Murkowski and Craig--the fifth 
attempt in 4 years to block the Department of the Interior from 
implementing stronger environmental regulations on hard rock mining.
  Last year, there was a compromise. The compromise said we are not 
just going to give this assignment to the Department of Interior. We 
are going to give it to a group, the National Research Council, that is 
associated with the National Academy of Sciences and ask them to come 
up with recommendations for new regulations on this industry to protect 
the environment. In fact, what this particular rider does, this 
environmental rider on this Ag bill, is to stop the implementation of 
most of the recommendations that came forward from the National 
Research Council.
  Let me tell the Senate why we need stronger regulations. First, any 
group that starts to mine on these public lands usually has to post a 
bond. It is a financial assurance that their activities on these lands 
will not in any way destroy the environment, and that ultimately the 
land will be reclaimed and the stabilization and vegetation of the land 
will be restored. Sadly, in many instances, these hard rock mining 
companies will post bonds that are literally worthless, corporate 
bonds, for example, and when the company goes bankrupt, they are of no 
value or little value at all. I will give a few examples a little later 
on of where these bonds have failed us and we have found the taxpayers 
holding the bag.
  Reclamation bonds are meant to ensure that companies do not declare 
bankruptcy and leave taxpayers responsible for the cleanup bill. The 
current bonding requirements don't work. In example after example, in 
Idaho, in Montana, in South Dakota, we find that these companies have 
gone bankrupt, the bonds don't cover the expenses, and the taxpayers 
end up holding the bag. The recommendation from the National Research 
Council, which I hold here, was that we change that assurance, that 
financial assurance to protect the taxpayers. This environmental rider 
stops that reform. It makes certain that the taxpayers don't have that 
protection.
  A recent study by the National Wildlife Federation and the Center for 
Science and Public Participation found that American taxpayers are 
facing as much as $1.1 billion in liability for restoring hard rock 
mines in the Western U.S. because current reclamation bonding 
regulations are inadequate. In Nevada alone, as of 1999, 13 mines have 
gone bankrupt. As of May 2000, at least 29 mines are bankrupt. Most of 
these mines were bonded by corporate guarantees. Just one single mine, 
the Yerington mine, could cost American taxpayers up to $40 to $80 
million to clean up. The effort to put real bonding requirements in the 
law to protect the taxpayers and the environment will be stopped by 
this environmental rider.
  Also, there is a question of environmental performance standards. 
These standards have to be adjusted to reflect modern mining practices. 
Let me give an example. One technique that is now being used, heap 
leaching, is increasingly common. Millions of tons of ore are extracted 
and piled in heaps on lined pads often hundreds of feet high. This post 
illustrates what I am discussing. To give Senators an idea of what we 
are talking about, this is a hard rock mining site. To put it in 
perspective, we can barely see this tiny dot down here, a large over-
the-road truck, to give an idea of the heaps of ore. Under the heap 
leaching process, a cyanide solution for gold or silver or sulfuric 
acid for copper is sprayed in open air over the pile so that ultimately 
it will leach the mineral from the ore. As I said earlier, it is this 
use of cyanide and sulfuric acid that has led to hard rock mining being 
the No. 1 toxic polluter in the United States of America.
  The mining industry has released 3.5 billion pounds of toxic 
pollution in 1998. In addition, we have to say that many of these 
agencies, like BLM and the Forest Service, need to have the right to 
deny mining in highly sensitive areas, particularly areas that are 
adjacent to national forests, national parks, and populated areas where 
they can cause great damage.
  Let me tell my colleagues about one particular mine as an example, 
the Zortman-Landusky mine in Montana. The Zortman-Landusky mine is 
located in the Little Rocky Mountains of north central Montana. ZL is 
an open-pit mine, one of the world's first large-scale cyanide heap 
leach gold mines and the largest gold mine in Montana when operations 
began in 1979. Lack of standards on pad construction allowed the 
company to overload its leach pads leading to cyanide releases in the 
nearby streams and potential health problems for the local communities. 
The Canadian Pacific company, Pegasus Gold, Incorporated, that owned 
the mine, went bankrupt in 1998. It left a bond to protect the damage 
it had created in the amount of $61.9 million. The actual cleanup cost 
for this site is estimated at approximately $70 million, leaving nearly 
$8.6 million to be picked up by the taxpayers.
  I would like to read for you for a moment a comment not from an 
environmental group, not from some eastern group of tree huggers, if 
you will, but from the Daily Missoulian. This is an editorial, Sunday, 
August 29, 1999, Missoula, MT. Referring to this particular mine, in 
their editorial entitled ``Miners Offer Regulators Some Hard Lessons 
from Montana''--my friends, the Western States where these mines are 
located:


[[Page 15599]]

       Pegasus' bankruptcy has been an eye-opening experience for 
     State regulators. Among the lessons learned:
       It's a mistake to assume the companies that develop mines 
     will stay around--or even exist--when it comes time to clean 
     the mines up.
       Reclamation plans that presume miners will reclaim their 
     own mines understate the actual cost when miners go out of 
     business or skip out. Everything becomes more expensive when 
     the state has to hire contractors for the work.

  The third lesson directly impacts the environmental rider which we 
are considering on this bill:

       Reclamation bonds required to insure cleanup may not be 
     worth as much as expected. At least some of the insurance 
     companies that issue reclamation bonds would rather fight 
     than pay, forcing the state to rack up legal expenses or 
     accept lesser settlements.

  It goes on to say:

       Look hard around the state [of Montana], and you won't find 
     a single example of a large-scale hard-rock mine successfully 
     reclaimed.
       Taxpayers and the environment aren't the only losers when 
     the reclamation plants go awry. Miners haven't done their 
     industry any favors, either. Mining is controversial enough, 
     even when people focus on jobs and profits. Leaving citizens 
     in the State with big messes and big bills to pay after the 
     mines play out is a good way to wear out your welcome.

  Incidentally, in this same Missoula, MT, editorial, they go on to 
praise the coal mining in the State which has modernized its practices 
and is considered more responsible by these editorial writers.
  Because the hour is late, I will not go through the five or six 
examples that I have of mines in Idaho, in South Dakota, which have 
literally been abandoned because of bankruptcy, leaving the taxpayers 
holding the bag for millions, almost $1 billion in liability.
  This environmental rider stops the Department from coming up with 
meaningful bonds. Quite honestly, it means that those who exploit 
public lands and leave an environmental mess behind and threats to the 
public health frankly make a fool out of Uncle Sam and American 
taxpayers. That is what this environmental rider does.
  I say to my colleagues in the Senate, as I close, what I am offering 
in this amendment is as follows: We should give the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Department of the Interior the authority to 
promulgate rules which will require full financial assurance of 
reclamation of mining sites. I state specifically the goals that we are 
seeking: To protect the taxpayers from the actions of hard rock mining 
operations that cause damage to or destruction of public lands, to 
prevent environmental destruction that unduly threatens fish or 
wildlife habitat, and to prevent toxic pollution that threatens public 
health or the environment.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator respond to a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to respond.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I represent a western gold mining State. I have just 
returned recently from examining the Brohm site in the beautiful Black 
Hills of South Dakota where the Brohm Mining Company has gone bankrupt 
with approximately a $5 million bond. That site has now been declared a 
Superfund site. It is now going to cost the Federal taxpayers 
approximately $27 million because of the inadequacy of the bond at this 
site. It is going to cost the taxpayers of the State of South Dakota in 
perpetuity tens of millions of dollars to monitor the streams and the 
environment around that bankrupt site.
  Is the Senator telling us that without the amendment he is offering 
here, we will continue to see these inadequate bonds and these costs 
being shifted to the taxpayers to pick up the cost of mining 
companies--oftentimes foreign mining companies--that have spoiled our 
land and then walk on?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from South Dakota is absolutely correct. I 
think it is important that a Senator from a State where this mining is 
taking place has come to share this story. This is not just testimony 
presented by environmental groups. These are the real-life 
circumstances of people in Western States, where the mining is taking 
place, who are left with a mess when the mines go bankrupt.
  This environmental rider stops us from revising and reforming the 
financial assurance language and requiring bonds of companies that 
literally will protect the communities and the taxpayers and families 
around these mining sites. That is what it is all about. That is the 
bottom line.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues in the Senate. I have waited for 
a long time to offer this. I will not belabor it. I hope they will join 
me in passing this amendment, which will establish standards which I 
think are reasonable to make sure this industry can continue but only 
in a responsible way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Mr. 
Durbin to amend Section 3102 of the Agriculture Appropriation bill.
  Section 3102 is the latest edition in a series of riders that have 
prevented the Clinton Administration from reforming hardrock mining on 
public lands by putting in place sound environmental and fiscal 
protections. In past debates, proponents of these riders have argued 
that the hardrock mining industry has reformed its ways. They 
acknowledge that mining companies have made mistakes in the past. How 
could they not? The facts are overwhelming: More than 300,000 acres of 
federal lands have not been reclaimed. There are more than 2,000 
abandoned mines in national parks. There are 59 Superfund sites at 
former mines across the country. The Mineral Policy Center estimates 
that the cleanup costs for abandoned mines on public and private lands 
may reach $72 billion. But after acknowledging this legacy of 
environmental damage, the proponents of these riders argue it is the 
result of decisions made 50 or 60 years ago--before we knew better--
before we understood that there a limits to what the environment can 
withstand. They tells us that a new environmental consciousness, 
sensitivity and awareness have taken root in the industry, and today's 
mines are safe because they utilize modern technology and practices.
  This is an important point, Mr. President. It deserves a response. 
I'm not out to punish the mining industry for mistakes of the past. I 
recognize that the mining industry has made improvements and that not 
all mining operations result in environmental disaster. The March 2000 
National Geographic has an excellent article on the hardrock mining 
industry. It discusses the history of the mining in the West, its 
cultural heritage, its economic contribution, and its unfortunate 
legacy of environmental ruin. It also talks about some of the new 
efforts underway to lessen mining's impact on the environment. It 
describes Homestake Mining Company's McLaughlin gold mine near Lower 
Lake, California as a safe mine. The McLaughlin operation recycles and 
contains all processed water, the 600-acre tailings pond will 
eventually be converted into wetlands, and a monitoring system watches 
for contamination of ground water. Sierra Club and the Mineral Policy 
Center--two groups sharply and appropriately critical of mining 
operations--have praised this operation. Homestake's environmental 
manager at the site told National Geographic that, ``When you look at 
the total environmental cost, it's roughly 2 percent of our capital 
costs for the whole project. We want to protect the our stockholders' 
investment. Creating an environmental liability doesn't serve their 
interests or ours.''
  I am confident that McLaughlin is not the only operation that is 
working and caring for the land, but it's just not true to say that the 
entire industry is reformed. There are bad actors and mistakes happen, 
and that is why we need tougher standards.
  I urge my colleagues to look at the record of the Hecla Mining 
Company's Grouse Creek Mine in the Salmon-Challis National Forest in 
Idaho. The Grouse Creek Mine opened in 1994 with great expectations. It 
was precisely the kind of operation we've heard about on the Senate 
floor: a new mine operated under a new environmental ethic, and 
presumably an example of why we don't need tougher protections. In 
August 1995, Mr. Michael White, the Vice President and General Counsel 
of the Hecla Mining Company, testified before the Senate that, ``The 
Grouse Creek Mine is a state-of-the-art facility and

[[Page 15600]]

has been constructed not only to meet, but to exceed, existing 
environmental requirements.'' Mr. White continued, ``For example, road 
improvements that included sediment catch basins actually reduced 
sediment impact to Jordan Creek compared to preexisting conditions.'' 
Let me be clear: Mr. White promised us a state-of-the-art facility that 
would exceed existing environmental requirements, and he went even 
further to promise that the Grouse Creek Mine would actually improve 
the environment by reducing the sediment runoff into Jordan Creek. 
Hecla's chairman, Arthur Brown, said in 1995 of Grouse Creek that, 
``Minimizing the environmental impact is a strong focus of Hecla.'' A 
Hecla company spokeswoman said in 1995, ``We believe that we need to 
take care of the land we are using; it's just good stewardship.'' The 
former Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus added his praise, saying ``Hecla 
has met every requirement we've asked of them. I can show you a 
thousand sins of the past that we need to clean up but modern mining is 
a plus.'' And the accolades continued: The Idaho Department of Lands 
nominated the mine for an award, and Hecla employees were honored by 
the US Department of Agriculture for their environmental work.
  It is now only 6 years latter, and Grouse Creek is an environmental 
disaster. In 1996--only two years after the mine opened-- the 
Environmental Protection Agency fined Hecla $85,000 for violating its 
wastewater permit. EPA found cyanide and mercury discharges that 
exceeded their limits by more than five times the allowed levels for 
over a year, and the mine was cited for excessive sediment discharge 
into Jordan Creek. In April 1999, Idaho officials found cyanide leaking 
into a stream that is habitat for the endangered chinook salmon, 
steelhead trout and bull trout. The cyanide levels were more than 12 
times the concentrations at which chronic exposure harms fish. The 
environmental legacy of the now-closed mine is a tailings impoundment 
holding 450 million gallons of cyanide-laced water and 4.3 million tons 
of heavy metals. Can you imagine? The General Counsel of Hecla, Michael 
Smith, actually testified before the Senate in 1995 that the mine would 
actually improve the environmental quality of Jordan Creek. Within less 
than five years the operation was cited for loading Jordan Creek with 
excessive sediments and cyanide. The fiscal legacy is just as bad. A 
May editorial in the Idaho Falls Post Register reports that Hecla may 
walk away from the environmental mess it has created if the cost of 
cleanup exceeds $28 million. Before opening the mine, Hecla was only 
required to put up a bond of $7 million, and the company reported $120 
million in losses before closing the mine. Maybe Hecla will reclaim the 
land, maybe it won't--it's too early to judge that issue--but clearly a 
system that allows part of a national forest to be turned into a toxic 
waste site, and leaves us negotiating cleanup, is in need of reform. 
And, Mr. President, more importantly, this didn't happen 50 years ago 
or 60 years ago. It happen 6 years ago.
  Grouse Creek isn't the only unfortunate example of the ``modern'' 
mining industry's environmental troubles. The Phelps Dodge Mining 
Corporation's Chino copper mine near Santa Rita, New Mexico has dumped 
more than 180 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into 
Whitewater Creek since 1987. In 1990, rainwater flushed 324,000 gallons 
of wastewater out of the Ray Complex mine site and into the Gila River 
in Arizona. Shortly after opening in 1986 the Summitville gold mine in 
southern Colorado began leaking cyanide, acid and heavy metals into 17 
miles of the Alamosa River. Its owner is now bankrupt, the mine closed 
and the land has been declared a Superfund site.
  We need reform. Today's debate is not about sins of the past or 
punishing the mining industry. It is about ending a system that sells 
public land for as little as $2.50 per acre. A system that has allowed 
more than $240 billion worth of minerals to be excavated from public 
lands and does not collect a cent in royalties. A system that, despite 
all the excuses and promises, continues to allow the land to be 
damaged. We should not have to depend on the goodwill of the mining 
industry to protect public land--the rules should be clear, they should 
be strong and they should be enforced. American citizens should not 
carry the burden of fiscal and environmental irresponsibility.
  I thank Senator Durbin for moving to amend the hardrock mining rider. 
I urge other my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, under rule XVI of the Senate, this is 
legislation on an appropriations bill. I raise a point of order against 
it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I raise the defense of germaneness, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The Chair submits to the Senate the question, Is the amendment 
germane?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Bunning
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Murray
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the ayes are 36, the nays are 56. 
The judgment of the Senate is that the amendment is not germane. The 
amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have two amendments, one of which I am 
not going to offer.
  I have an amendment which establishes the Trade Injury Compensation 
Act of 2000. This measure is identical to my bill, S. 2709, which 
enjoys wide bipartisan support by my fellow members of Senate Beef 
Caucus and has already been referred to the Senate Agriculture 
Committee.
  The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a Beef Industry 
Compensation Trust Fund to help the United States cattle industry 
withstand the European Union's illegal ban on beef treated with 
hormones.
  Over a year ago, the World Trade Organization endorsed retaliation 
when the EU refused to open to American

[[Page 15601]]

beef. Since that time, the EU has continued to stall in its compliance 
which is frankly, outrageous. For over a decade we've fought the beef 
battle. Now its time to try something new to help producers who 
continue to be injured by the ban.
  The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using 
the tariffs imposed on the EU to directly aid U.S. beef producers. 
Normally, the additional tariff revenues received from retaliation go 
to the Treasury. This bill establishes a trust fund so that the 
affected industry will receive those revenues as compensation for its 
injury.
  Mr. President, my amendment creates a fund which provides assistance 
to United States beef producers to improve the quality of beef produced 
in the United States; and provides assistance to United States beef 
producers in market development, consumer education, and promotion of 
the beef industry in overseas markets.
  The Secretary of the Treasury shall cease the transfer of funds 
equivalent to the duties on the beef retaliation list only when the 
European Union complies with the World Trade Organization ruling 
allowing United States beef producers access to the European market.
  In a perfect world we would not need this amendment because the 
European Union would abide by its international trade commitments. And 
it is still my hope that the European Union simply comply with the WTO 
Dispute Settlement rulings and allow our beef to enter its borders.
  Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that 
sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow.
  We all recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of 
my colleagues, are working on ways to fix it. We must bring credibility 
and compliance to the system. The Trade Injury Compensation Act will 
give some relief to our producers as we strive toward this endeavor.
  Mr. President, I realize that we still have work to do in perfecting 
this amendment. That is why I appreciate my colleague Senator Lugar's 
commitment to allow an Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on this bill in 
September.
  In light of that impending hearing, I will not offer the amendment at 
this time.
  Time is of the essence for our producers who have been injured by the 
European Union. I look forward to this hearing and further expeditious 
action in this matter.


                           Amendment No. 3981

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3981.

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct a restudy of 
the project for navigation, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, to 
evaluate alternatives to the authorized inlet stabilization project at 
                             Oregon Inlet)

       Strike section 3104 and insert the following:

     SEC. 3104. STUDY OF OREGON INLET, NORTH CAROLINA, NAVIGATION 
                   PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, shall have 
     conducted, and submited to Congress, a restudy of the project 
     for navigation, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 
     (84 Stat. 1818), to evaluate all reasonable alternatives, 
     including nonstructural alternatives, to the authorized inlet 
     stabilization project at Oregon Inlet.
       (b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of the Army shall--
       (1) take into account the views of affected interests; and
       (2)(A) take into account objectives in addition to 
     navigation, including--
       (i) complying with the policies of the State of North 
     Carolina regarding construction of structural measures along 
     State shores; and
       (ii) avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to, or 
     benefiting, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Pea 
     Island National Wildlife Refuge; and
       (B) develop options that meet those objectives.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to by my 
good friend, the ever gracious senior Senator from North Carolina.
  The amendment strikes the provision in the bill that transfers 
portions of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Pea Island 
National Wildlife Refuge from the Department of the Interior to the 
Army Corps of Engineers. It also requires the Army Corps to conduct a 
study within 180 days of alternatives, including nonstructural 
alternatives, to the currently authorized inlet stabilization project 
at Oregon Inlet. This study would have to take into account objectives 
in addition to navigation, such as the policies of the State of North 
Carolina regarding construction of structural measures along the coast 
and minimizing adverse impacts to the national seashore and the 
wildlife refuge. Most importantly, the study would have to develop 
recommendations to meet those objectives. I hope this study will 
provide a sound basis on which Congress can resolve this issue.
  I believe this amendment will be fair to the people of North Carolina 
and also to the American taxpayers.
  The senior Senator from North Carolina has been very helpful in 
working out this amendment. I appreciate his efforts.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, my amendment would replace section 3104 
of the bill, which transfers land from the Interior Department of the 
Corps of Engineers in order to circumvent environmental rules and 
promote the construction of a system of jetties at Oregon Inlet in 
North Carolina.
  Some background about the Oregon Inlet project.
  At the outset, let me acknowledge the obvious. I'm no expert about 
Oregon Inlet.
  Senator Helms is. He has been working on this issue for at least 30 
years.
  I am simply trying to react to an appropriations rider by mustering 
the facts as well as I can.
  Oregon Inlet is on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, near Roanoke 
Island. It is the only inlet between Cape Henry, Virginia, 45 miles to 
the north and Cape Hatteras, 85 miles to the south.
  Like much of the Outer Banks, the Inlet is a dynamic ecosystem, with 
high waves, swift currents, and a rapidly shifting sandbar at the mouth 
of the Inlet.
  Make no mistake. It is treacherous water. Between 1965 and 1995, more 
than 20 ships sank or ran aground, with the loss of 22 lives.
  I should not, though, that all but one of the deaths occurred before 
the early 1980s, when the Corps began a dredging program.
  In 1970, at the urging of Senator Helms, Congress enacted legislation 
authorizing the Corps of Engineers to construct a jetty system at 
Oregon Inlet.
  Specifically, the Corps was directed to deepen the navigation channel 
through the Inlet from 14 feet to 20 feet and to maintain that channel 
with two jetties.
  It gets more complicated. And much has changed since 1970.
  The jetties would prevent the natural flow of sand from north to 
south. That flow is what replenishes Pea Island, a national wildlife 
refuge which otherwise would erode.
  To counteract this effect, the system includes a system of pipes and 
pumps that will transport 2 million cubic feet of sand each year.
  All told the project will cost American taxpayers $108 million to 
construct and about $6 million a year to maintain. We all know it will 
cost more than that.
  The project would be built on: The northern part, on the Cape 
Hatteras National Seashore; and the southern part on the Pea Island 
Wildlife Refuge.
  Therefore, before the Corps can build the project, it must get 
permits from the Interior Department, confirming that the project will 
be compatible with the Seashore and the Refuge.

[[Page 15602]]

  The provision that has been included in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, as section 3104, effectively eliminates this 
permit requirement. It transfers the land from the Interior Department 
to the Corps, so that permits no longer are necessary.
  Those are the basic facts.
  Now, some of you listening may be scratching your head, wondering 
what's going on here. After all, the project was authorized in 1970. 
Thirty years later, it still hasn't been built. That, you might be 
thinking, is unacceptable. It's probably because of Government red 
tape.
  Maybe it's high time we cut through all the red tape and move this 
project along, as the bill would do.
  An understandable reaction, if you just look at this on the surface. 
But, as is often the case, if you dig a little deeper, and get past the 
surface, it's not that simple.
  The principal reason that the project has not been built is that the 
project is very questionable and very controversial. Many have argued 
that the project will cause great environmental harm and waste more 
than one hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money.
  Time after time, Interior Secretaries have refused to grant the 
necessary permits. Including I should note, President Reagan's Interior 
Secretary, James Watt.
  The only exception was when Secretary Lujan granted a permit towards 
the end of the Bush Administration. Soon after taking office, Secretary 
Babbitt reversed the decision.
  Also time after time, the environmental impact statements developed 
by the Corps have been found to be inadequate, and the Corps has been 
sent back to the drawing board.
  As we speak, the process continues. The Corps has been asked to 
revise its latest Environmental Impact Statement, to address what the 
National Marine Fisheries Service called ``significant errors and 
inadequacies.''
  As I understand it, the revised EIS will be submitted to Corps 
headquarters around the end of this month and issued in August.
  After that, the Corps can move ahead and again seek permits from the 
Interior Department. If there is a dispute, it will be resolved by the 
White House.
  Section 3104 of the bill circumvents this process by transferring the 
land and therefore eliminating the need for any permits.
  Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the concerns of Senator Helms and 
others who support this project. I know that they're frustrated that 
this project has drawn on too long.
  But I believe that the approach taken in the bill has four main 
faults.
  The first goes to process. The provision in the bill is, simply put, 
a rider. It is authorizing legislation, properly within the 
jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  This is a controversial issue; it has been debated, back and forth, 
for thirty years. It should be resolved on the merits, with input from 
the committee of jurisdiction. It should not be resolved as a rider on 
an unrelated appropriations bill.
  The second fault is that the bill may cause serious environmental 
harm.
  This is, again, a dynamic ecosystem. Always shifting. Always 
changing.
  As this chart shows, there have been major changes in the geography 
of Oregon Inlet over the years. The Inlet itself has shifted south by 
about 80 feet a year, which amounts to more than two miles since the 
Inlet opened in 1848.
  In the middle of this dynamic, shifting system, the project would 
construct a pair of rock jetties that are a total of more than 3 miles 
long.
  That poses two big risks.
  In the first place, we'll be altering the natural system by which the 
ocean erodes and then replenishes the barrier islands along the coast.
  As it now stands, each year, tons of sand shift, mostly from north to 
south, replenishing Pea Island. The jetties will block most of that 
sand from shifting naturally. To compensate, the Corps plans to pump 
about 2 million cubic feet of sand each year, that will be trapped 
above the north jetty, through a large pipeline, and unload it below 
the south jetty.
  Maybe it will work. But what if it doesn't?
  Consider what happened on Assateague Island. 60 years ago, we 
constructed a jetty. It blocked the sand from replenishing the southern 
part of the island. Since then, the coastline has eroded about one-half 
mile.
  Another thing. We'll alter the natural flow of water through what is 
now a broad, relatively shallow inlet leading to Albermarle and Pamlico 
Sounds. The Sounds contain important and productive habitats for 
several species of fish, including Spanish mackerel, Atlantic croaker, 
and gray trout.
  These fish spawn at sea. The larval fish then migrate into the calm 
waters of the sounds where they grow until they're strong enough to 
return to the ocean.
  It is not at all clear that these fish will be able to make it 
through the jetties. The fishery biologists just aren't sure.
  So we are taking major environmental risks.
  The third major fault is that the economics don't add up.
  True, the Corps projects an economic benefit, of about $37 million 
over a 50 year period.
  However, as we all know, the Corps' economic analysis has come under 
heavy criticism lately.
  In any event, many people have questioned the Corps' estimate of the 
cost and benefits of this project
  I am not talking about environmental groups, which, it might be 
argued, have their own agenda.
  I am talking about Taxpayers for Common Sense, and several 
distinguished economists who have studied the project.
  For example, Professor Richard Seldon, who I understand is a 
distinguished professor emiritus at the University of Virginia, said 
this:

       My extremely conservative analysis of the Corps' data found 
     that rather than the almost $37 million of net benefits 
     claimed for the project by the Corps . . . this project will 
     have negative benefits of [more than $4 million]. In fact, I 
     believe the project is very likely to have a much worse 
     return on investment based on many costs thus far not 
     accounted for by the Corps.

  In a letter sent to Senator Helms a few days ago, Professor Emeritus 
Seldon said.

       I am convinced that these jetties should not be built--not 
     for environmental reasons but simply because the benefits 
     claimed by the Corps are nowhere near as large as the likely 
     cost to taxpayers. This is a bad economic deal, even if we 
     forget about the environment.

  The fourth fault is that I believe there's a better way.
  Let me say again that I understand the frustration that Senator Helms 
and others in North Carolina feel about this project.
  They have serious concerns. One is safety. Again, these are 
treacherous waters.
  Another is economic development. As I understand it, this is an area 
that could use the economic boost that increased fish landings might 
provide.
  I'm not going to stand here and say that environmental concerns 
should prevail over safety and economic development. Not a all.
  I don't buy that, whether we're talking about Montana, North 
Carolina, or anyplace else. We have to strike a balance.
  But here is the rub. There may be a better way.
  We may be able to achieve all the benefits that would be achieved by 
constructing the jetties, and do it much more cheaply and without the 
environmental risks.
  Here is how. By dredging a better channel.
  We could direct the Corps to dredge the Inlet deeper and more often.
  But there is a problem. In the most recent EIs the Corps has studied 
only one non-structural alternative. One that would have more than 
doubled this width of the channel. It's no surprise that the costs out-
weighed the benefits. So, for at least 30 years, we haven't fully 
considered whether there's a better alternative to the jetty system.
  In addition there are many more factors to consider--environmental, 
recreational, and so forth--then there were in 1970.

[[Page 15603]]

  That brings me to my amendment.
  It deletes the provision in the bill that transfers the land, thereby 
circumventing the permitting process.
  Instead, the amendment requires that, within 180 days the Corps, must 
evaluate alternatives to the jetty project, including dredging.
  In doing so, the Corps must consider the views of affected interests, 
must consider how various alternatives accord with North Carolina's 
shoreline protection laws, and must minimize adverse environmental 
effects.
  Mr. President, pulling this all together, we need to do more to 
improve safety at Oregon Inlet.
  But the jetty system that we authorized in 1970 is an idea whose time 
has probably gone.
  We do not need 3 miles of granite rock jetties. We don't need 2 miles 
of pipeline, to pump 2 million cubic feet of sand every year.
  We do not need huge environmental risks.
  We don't need to ask taxpayers to fork over $108 million.
  Instead, we should step back, take stock, and see whether we can 
solve the problems at Oregon Inlet in a way that avoids big 
environmental risks and saves taxpayers' money.
  Therefore, I urge colleagues to support my amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent a statement of administration policy by the 
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget 
listing the Administration's strong objection to the underlying 
provision in the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


s. 2536--agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, 
 and related agencies appropriations bill, fy 2001--(sponsor: stevens 
                                (r) ak)

       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on the FY 2001 Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Bill, as reported by the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee. Your consideration of the 
     Administration's views would be appreciated.
       The President's FY 2001 budget is based on a balanced 
     approach that maintains fiscal discipline, eliminates the 
     national debt, extends the solvency of Social Security and 
     Medicare, provides for an appropriately sized tax cut, 
     establishes a new voluntary Medicare prescription drug 
     benefit in the context of broader reforms, expands health 
     care coverage to more families, and funds critical 
     investments for our future. An essential element of this 
     approach is ensuring adequate funding for discretionary 
     programs. To this end, the President has proposed 
     discretionary spending limits at levels that we believe are 
     necessary to serve the American people.
       Unfortunately, the FY 2001 congressional budget resolution 
     provides inadequate resources for discretionary investments. 
     We need realistic levels of funding for critical government 
     functions that the American people expect their government to 
     perform well, including education, national security, law 
     enforcement, environmental protection, preservation of our 
     global leadership, air safety, food safety, economic 
     assistance for the less fortunate, research and technology, 
     and the administration of Social Security and Medicare. Based 
     on the inadequate budget resolution, this bill fails to 
     address critical needs of the American people.
       The bill includes inadequate funding for food safety, 
     conservation and environmental programs, farm loans, 
     bioterrorism, agricultural research through competitive 
     grants and other important programs. In addition, there are a 
     number of objectionable language provisions in the Committee 
     bill.
       It is our understanding that a substitute will be offered 
     to the supplemental title of the bill that will include a 
     number of highly objectionable environmental and other 
     riders, including a provision to facilitate construction of 
     the Oregon Inlet jetties prior to completion of a pending 
     environmental impact statement, restrictions that would 
     attempt to weaken pending hardrock mining regulations, and 
     other objectionable provisions. The Administration opposes 
     the bill in its current form. If such riders are included in 
     the bill, the President's senior advisers would recommend 
     that he veto the bill.


       fy 2000 supplemental appropriations contained in this bill

       Objectionable Legislative Riders--The Administration 
     opposes the environmental and other authorization provisions 
     contained in the bill, which are inappropriate for inclusion 
     in an appropriations act. Such riders rarely receive the 
     level of congressional and public review required of 
     authorization language, and they often override existing 
     environmental protections or impose unjustified micro-
     management restrictions on agency activities.
       More detailed views will be provided when the text of the 
     substitute is made available. Therefore, the views expressed 
     here are necessarily preliminary.
       Oregon Inlet (NC) Jetties.--The Administration strongly 
     opposes the provision to remove lands from the Cape Hatteras 
     National Seashore and the Pea Island National Wildlife 
     Refuge, prior to completion of a pending environmental impact 
     statement (EIS) on proposals to maintain navigation through 
     Oregon Inlet, N.C. This rider would undermine the EIS process 
     by selecting one option--the construction of a dual jetty and 
     sand transfer system--before a decision on alternatives can 
     be made. There remain significant questions about the long-
     term environmental impacts and the economic justifications of 
     the dual jetty option, and those questions need to be 
     answered before considering any legislation to remove land 
     from a national park and a national wildlife refuge.
       Restrictions on Hardrock Mining Regulations.--The 
     Administration strongly objects to the bill's attempt to 
     weaken pending final regulations on the management of 
     hardrock mining on public lands. These overdue regulations 
     are needed to address the major changes in technology and 
     mining industry practices since the regulations were last 
     updated in 1980. The proposed rider would also attempt to 
     reopen an agreement reached in negotiations on the FY 2000 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to allow 
     the final rule to go forward, as long as it was ``not 
     inconsistent'' with the recommendations of a recent National 
     Research Council (NRC) report. The rider would now attempt to 
     limit the rule to only a specific subset of the NRC report's 
     recommendations. By doing so, the rider could hinder the 
     effective regulation of industry practices (such as large-
     scale cyanide leaching for gold on public lands) that have 
     become increasingly prevalent over the past 20 years.
       Community Builders, Sec. 2602.--The Administration urges 
     deletion of the highly objectionable, micro-management 
     language in Section 2602, which would prohibit the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development from hiring replacement 
     staff for 350 community builder positions.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. BAUCUS. In addition, I ask that a letter from the organization 
Taxpayers For Common Sense be printed in the Record. It is very much 
opposed to the underlying provision and in favor of this amendment, as 
well as a statement by Dr. Seldon, a very respected economist who 
studied this issue extensively.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 20, 2000.
     Re Baucus substitute amendment on Oregon Inlet

     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: Taxpayers for Common Sense Action 
     thank you for your leadership in opposing the anti-taxpayer 
     Oregon Inlet rider that Senator Helms added to the 
     Agriculture Appropriations bill. TCS Action strongly supports 
     your substitute amendment to provide for an expedited Corps 
     of Engineers/Interior Department study of cheaper 
     alternatives. In addition, TCS supports commitment of a few 
     million dollars for improved interim dredging. TCS Action 
     will likely score the vote on this Baucus amendment on TCS 
     Action's annual Common Sense Taxpayer Scorecard.
       As you know, the Oregon Inlet rider would transfer 
     federally-protected land from the Department of Interior to 
     the Corps of Engineers, thereby removing one of he last 
     remaining obstacles to construction of twin mile-long stone 
     jetties at a cost of $108 million. Anyone who has ever been 
     to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore on North Carolina's 
     famed Outer Banks understands intuitively that the Oregon 
     Inlet project would be a massive waste of taxpayer money. 
     Moreover, six major newspapers in North Carolina have 
     editorialized against the project. Typically, the Raleigh 
     (NC) News and Observer editorialized May 12:
       ``Decisions on the jetties properly have to be made on the 
     merits of arguments for and against them, not because 
     lawmakers have been intimidated by a tactic such as the one 
     Helms is attempting. And on those merits, despite supporter' 
     good intentions, the jetties shape up as an extraordinary 
     boondoggle.''
       The anti-taxpayer rider is strongly opposed by a broad 
     coalition. Meanwhile, a 1999 independent review of the Corps' 
     benefit-cost analysis by Dr. Richard Selden of the University 
     of Virginia on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
     demonstrated the project's benefits do not outweigh the 
     costs. The project will provide a $500,000 federal subsidy 
     for each of 215 charter or commercial fishing boats that will 
     purportedly benefit. Instead, routine channel dredging has 
     worked for the last 30 years. Surely, it is reasonable to 
     study all alternatives to the Oregon Inlet project before 
     giving the green

[[Page 15604]]

     light to this massive waste of taxpayer money opposed by the 
     last five administrations.
       Thank you again for your leadership to propose a reasonable 
     compromise solution on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ralph DeGennaro,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                    July 16, 2000.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: I write you as a staunch Republican and 
     a conservative economist who got his Ph.D. under Milton 
     Friedman at the University of Chicago. I am definitely not a 
     ``tree hugger.'' I have never belonged to the Sierra Club or 
     any other activist environmental group.
       I am writing because I'm concerned about your support for 
     the Corps of Engineers' proposal to build jetties at Oregon 
     Inlet. I know you have declared yourself in favor of this 
     project on many occasions, extending over many years, and I 
     can see the practical difficulty of withdrawing your support 
     at this juncture. Nevertheless, I am convinced that these 
     jetties should not be built--not for environmental reasons 
     but simply because the benefits claimed by the Corps are 
     nowhere near as large as the likely cost to taxpayers. This 
     is a bad economic deal, even if we forget about the 
     environment.
       You may wonder whether there is a valid basis for my strong 
     negative opinion of the Corps' proposal. Last summer I did a 
     benefit/cost analysis of the proposal as a private consultant 
     hired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (You may wonder 
     about the objectivity of a study that was commissioned by an 
     agency that opposes the jetties. All I can say is that I 
     examined a ton of material on the proposal, and I tried to 
     apply accepted economic analysis to all of it, regardless of 
     the source.) My findings were clearcut and unambiguous: there 
     is no way these jetties can pass a standard benefit/cost 
     test.
       You may also wonder whether my conclusions would be 
     accepted by most other fairminded economists. I would be glad 
     to have my work scrutinized by a neutral panel (assuming one 
     could be found!). But I can assure you with complete 
     confidence that the benefit/cost analysis provided by the 
     Corps is full of flaws and would be accepted as valid by few 
     if any professional economists. This simply is not an 
     appropriate basis for committing over $100 million of 
     taxpayer money! At the very least the Corps should be 
     required to submit its analysis to some outside panel for a 
     thorough critique before they get a green light on this one.
       By US Postal Service I am mailing you a copy of my August 
     1999 report, and I will welcome reactions from you or your 
     staff.
           Sincerely,
                                          Richard T. Selden, Ph.D.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Finally, I underline my appreciation for the hard work of 
both Senators from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, as well as Mr. Edwards. 
This has been a very contentious issue. But as a consequence of the 
mutual hard work, this amendment can be accepted by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for 
me to deliver my remarks in a seated position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful for the willingness of the 
Senator from Montana to work with us, to make certain the stabilization 
of Oregon Inlet is once more a priority of Congress and of the U.S. 
Corps of Engineers--in the next 180 days.
  I confess some unease at the prospect of yet another study of the 
Oregon Inlet, inasmuch as there already have been almost 100 such 
studies previously. If one more study is what is required to save the 
livelihoods of the good people of Oregon Inlet who make their livings 
as commercial fishermen, then so be it. But let there be no mistake. 
This is the last study that will be conducted before action is taken. 
That is agreed to by the Senator from Montana and me--to help those 
good people, because enough, Mr. President, is enough.
  I will work in good faith with the Senator from Montana and others to 
make certain that swift action will follow this latest, and I hope 
last, study to be undertaken.
  Mr. President, for nearly three decades--nearly 28 years, to be 
exact--I have been urging the enactment of legislation to restore 
security and safety to the remarkable people who live and work on North 
Carolinas Outer Banks.
  And for those almost three decades, those fine people have been 
short-circuited by a federal bureaucracy more intent in imposing its 
own will than following through on a much-needed project authorized by 
Congress in 1970: That is, to begin the process of creating two hard-
rock jetties to stabilize and secure Oregon Inlet, the only deep-sea 
access along the East Coast for a distance of 220 miles between Cape 
Henry, Virginia, and Morehead City, N.C.
  The purpose of the provision being challenged here tonight is to 
first, protect the lives of literally thousands of both commercial and 
recreational fishermen who live and work in the Outer Banks, and 
second, to protect the livelihoods of those fishermen, their boats and 
their cargo, which is so vital to their making a living.
  So let's be clear about what's at stake in this debate. We're talking 
about saving lives and saving a way of life for many of thousands of 
fine decent people trying to make a living providing fine, fresh 
seafood.
  Wayne Gray, a Coast Guard officer stationed at the base there told 
me, ``Oregon Inlet is a nightmare. In my 32 years in the Coast Guard, 
it's the most dangerous place I've ever seen.''
  The Coast Guard station there receives on average a distress call 
every other day. In this fiscal year alone, the Oregon Inlet Coast 
Guard has responded to nearly 100 call for help by distressed seamen. 
There will be many more this summer, I'll promise you: There always 
are.
  Over the years, more than 20 lives have been lost because of the 
deadly situation in the Inlet. In fact, I recently received a letter 
from a man named Robbie Maharaj who recounted an incident which 
happened about 4 years ago.

       In November of 1996 a friend and I were fishing on the 
     northern side of the ocean bar at Oregon Inlet. It was a 
     fairly rough day at the bar.
       We had caught out limit of striped bass and were pulling in 
     our lines when I heard on the radio that some of my friends 
     had gone down. I immediately finished pulling up my lines and 
     went to help.
       As I pulled up to the boat, I was able to get one man 
     aboard. We laid him on the deck. He was so cold from being in 
     the water that he looked pale, and almost dead. As we got him 
     on deck, water began to break over the stern of my boat. I 
     had to leave the scene to avoid going down myself.
       All in all, four of the five men in the water made it. I 
     was able to get two in my boat. Other fishermen pulled out 
     the two other survivors. the Coast Guard got the one man that 
     didn't make it.
       People ask me all the time whether I would do it again. 
     There's no question that I would try and pull men out of the 
     water if I were faced with the same situation again. It's 
     sort of a buddy system out there. You hear cries for help and 
     you can't leave them there. You've got to try to help. This 
     is especially true when the people yelling for help are 
     friends. Who knows, the next time it could be me yelling to 
     be saved.
       Thanks to the events of 1996, I know just how dangerous 
     Oregon Inlet can be. Senator, thank you for trying to get the 
     stabilization effort moving. We really need it.

  The provision in question merely transfers the land relevant to the 
project from the Department of the Interior to the Army Corps of 
Engineers, so that the wheels of the inlet stabilization project can 
finally begin. This project is sound. Almost one hundred separate 
studies have been made on the project; therefore, we can reasonably say 
that just about every possible issue relevant to the project has been 
thoroughly considered and resolved.
  On an economic scale, the project has a cost/benefit ratio of 1.0/
1.6, meaning for every $1 spent on the project, $1.60 in benefits are 
returned.
  As for the environmental concerns that have been raised, the Corps 
has made numerous compromises and alterations to the jetties in order 
to alleviate every single negative impact upon the local habitat and 
wildlife.
  How many more lives will be lost before Congress makes good on the 
commitment made 30 years ago. That time has finally come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce to all Senators 
we are only 2 or 3 minutes away from getting a managers' package of 
amendments to wrap up the final consideration of this bill. We also 
have some colloquies and statements that Senators have presented to us 
during the

[[Page 15605]]

final stages of the consideration of the bill we are now reviewing and 
processing. I expect to be able to present for unanimous consent 
agreement, for inclusion in the Record, these statements and 
colloquies.
  We know of no other amendments that are to be offered.
  May I ask the Chair, what is the pending business?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, can we have a vote on the amendment, 
please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Montana has 
not yet been disposed of.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3981) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we have 
been awaiting word from the minority staff of the subcommittee to clear 
the managers' package. We have cleared the managers' package on this 
side of the aisle. We have statements and colloquies relating to the 
managers' package, and I will momentarily send up all of the amendments 
and the statements and colloquies related thereto.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if we can have a voice vote on 
final passage.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to passing the bill 
on a voice vote.


               Amendments Nos. 3982 through 4014, En Bloc

  Mr. President, I now have an indication that the managers' package 
has been cleared. I send the managers' package of amendments to the 
desk and ask that they be reported en bloc and considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and 
     Mr. Kohl, proposes amendments numbered 3982 through 4014, en 
     bloc.

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


                           Amendment No. 3982

 (Purpose: To provide for a Animal and Plant Health Services wildlife 
                  services methods development study)

       On page 20, line 8, strike the ``.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``: Provided further, That not less than $1 million of the 
     funds available under this heading made available for 
     wildlife services methods development, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall conduct pilot projects in no less than four 
     states representative of wildlife predation of livestock in 
     connection with farming operations for direct assistance in 
     the application of non-lethal predation control methods: 
     Provided further, That the General Accounting Office shall 
     report to the Committee on Appropriations by November 30, 
     2001, on the Department's compliance with this provision and 
     on the effectiveness of the non-lethal measures.''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased that the 
Smith-Boxer amendment on Wildlife Services was accepted to the 
Agriculture appropriations bill.
  Our amendment will create a pilot study in four States that will 
examine the effectiveness of nonlethal predation control methods under 
Wildlife Services. Our amendment is reasonable and fair.
  Let me briefly talk about the lethal predator control program 
administered under the Wildlife Service program.
  With our scarce tax dollars, Wildlife Services personnel kill more 
than 80,000 mammalian predators a year, mainly coyotes, but also black 
bears, mountain lions, foxes, and bobcats.
  They conduct this killing by engaging in aerial gunning, poisoning, 
and trapping.
  Since 1993, there have been 18 aerial gunning crashes. In addition, 
the aerial gunning program has caused the deaths of seven individuals, 
both Federal and contract employees.
  Banned in 89 nations because it is so inhumane, leghold traps catch 
any animal unlucky enough to trigger the device. Animals caught in 
traps languish and suffer for days, sometimes resorting to twisting off 
or chewing off a leg to escape its vice grip.
  I am not standing before you today saying that every program that 
Wildlife Services executes is harmful or a waste of taxpayer money.
  There are some valuable programs dealing with property protection, 
human health and safety, crop protection, natural resources, forest and 
range protection, and aquiculture which are not affected by this 
amendment.
  However, Wildlife Services spends more than $10 million a year on 
lethal predator control programs.
  But does the lethal predator control program really work? It does not 
seem to be controlling the coyote population, it has tripled in number 
and increased in range because the surviving coyotes will breed more 
often and produce larger litters.
  In fact, according to a recent article in the Washington Times, 
coyotes have now spread to Virginia and Maryland.
  In addition, this program has been under scrutiny for decades. 
Several presidential commissions, including commissions in the Kennedy, 
Johnson, and Carter administrations have criticized the program's 
needless reliance on lethal predator control.
  In 1995, the General Accounting Office came to the same conclusion, 
stating the Animal Damage Control had failed to opt for non-lethal 
programs.
  I am well aware that ranchers need to protect their livestock, their 
investment. During the last 2 decades, there have been a variety of 
practical and effective nonlethal husbandry techniques developed and 
put into practical use: The use of guard animals, such as dogs, 
donkeys, or llamas; the use of electronic sound and light devices; 
predator exclusion fencing; shed lambing; and night penning, et cetera.
  By deploying these techniques, ranchers can minimize the need for 
lethal responses to predators, which are indiscriminant and cruel to 
animals.
  In closing I would like to read you a quote from the Tulsa World 
newspaper, which says it all:

       Despite steady increases in the Wildlife Services annual 
     budget, and an 8 percent increase in the coyote kill in the 
     past decade, livestock losses to predators have not declined. 
     The statistics show that in every state where predator 
     control was practiced, the agency spent more money on control 
     than the value of livestock lost. It would be cheaper simply 
     to compensate ranchers for their losses.

  I will repeat that last sentence: ``It would be cheaper simply to 
compensate ranchers for their losses.''
  In short, the lethal predator control program doesn't work, it is 
dangerous for humans, cruel to animals, and a waste of taxpayer 
dollars.
  I thank the managers of the bill for including this pilot study of 
nonlethal predator control methods in the Agriculture appropriations 
bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their assistance 
in adding an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that 
requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services 
Research Center to design and implement on-the-ground demonstration 
projects to test the application of non-lethal mammalian predator 
control techniques.
  The purpose of this amendment is to generate data that can be used in 
determining the effectiveness of non-lethal methods for protecting 
livestock from predators. These nonlethal methods include: the use of 
guard animals such as dogs, donkeys, and llamas; the use of predator-
proof electric fencing;

[[Page 15606]]

special light and sound deterrents; and promotion of sound animal 
husbandry techniques such as carcass removal, night penning, and shed 
lambing to protect pregnant animals and their newborns when they are 
most vulnerable.
  Lethal predator control measures, such as shooting, poisoning, or 
trapping, should not be employed in these projects. In order to produce 
useful outcomes, the pilot projects should involve ranchers whose 
circumstances are representative of the types of livestock/predator 
conflicts that other ranchers experience around the country.
  The General Accounting Office has been tasked with reporting on these 
pilot projects and providing an assessment of the effectiveness of 
these non-lethal mammalian predator control measures. I look forward to 
working with the Department, along with Senator Smith and my other 
colleagues, to ensure that this program gets underway quickly and 
smoothly to begin demonstrating the value of these non-lethal predator 
control methods.


                           amendment no. 3983

      (Purpose: To amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Section 2111(a)(3) of the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 651(a)(3)) is amended by 
     adding after sulfites, `except in the production of 
     wine,'.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3984

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to require offices 
of the Farm Services Agency to discontinue use of FINPACK for financial 
                     planning and credit analysis)

       On page 75, after line 16 insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require an office of the Farm Service Agency that 
     is using FINPACK on May 17, 1999, for financial planning and 
     credit analysis, to discontinue use of FINPACK for six months 
     from the date of enactment of this Act.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3985

     (Purpose: Expands eligibility for Rural Development Community 
                          Facilities program)

       On page 93 of division B, as modified, after line 21, 
     insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Sea Island Health Clinic located on Johns Island, South 
     Carolina, shall remain eligible for assistance and funding 
     from the Rural Development community facilities programs 
     administered by the Department of Agriculture until such time 
     new population data is available from the 2000 Census.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3986

 (Purpose: To provide funds for a study on flood plain management for 
                   the Pocasset River, Rhode Island)

       On page 34, line 23, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available for watershed and flood prevention activities, 
     $500,000 shall be available for a study to be conducted by 
     the Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation 
     with the town of Johnston, Rhode Island, on floodplain 
     management for the Pocasset River, Rhode Island''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3987

(Purpose: To allocate funding made available by this Act for loans and 
grants to federally recognized Indian tribes under the rural community 
 advance program under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act)

       On page 36, lines 20 through 25, Strike ``including grants 
     for drinking and waste disposal systems pursuant to Section 
     306C of such Act: Provided further, That the Federally 
     Recognized Native American Tribes are not eligible for any 
     other rural utilities program set aside under the Rural 
     Community Advancement Program:'' and insert ``of which (1) 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for rural business opportunity 
     grants under section 306(a)(11) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1926(a)(11)), (2) $5,000,000 shall be available for community 
     facilities grants for tribal college improvements under 
     section 306(a)(19) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)19)), (3) 
     $15,000,000 shall be available for grants for drinking water 
     and waste disposal systems under section 306C of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1926c) to federally recognized Native American Tribes 
     that are not eligible to receive funds under any other rural 
     utilities program set-aside under the rural community 
     advancement program, and (4) $3,000,000 shall be available 
     for rural business enterprise grants under section 310B(c) of 
     that Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)):''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3988

          (Purpose: To provide for a pasture recovery program)

       On page 84, line 23, after ``section'', insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available by this section, up to $40,000,000 may be used to 
     carry out the Pasture Recovery Program: Provided further, 
     That the payments to a producer made available through the 
     Pasture Recovery Program shall be no less than 65 percent of 
     the average cost of reseeding''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3989

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of any funding to recover payments 
   erroneously made to oyster fishermen in the State of Connecticut)

       On page 95, after line 22, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act or in 
     any other Act may be used to recover part or all of any 
     payment erroneously made to any oyster fisherman in the State 
     of Connecticut for oyster losses under the program 
     established under section 1102(b) of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(a) of Division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277)), and the regulations issued pursuant to such 
     section 1102(b).
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3990

 (Purpose: To provide support for creative anti-hunger initiatives in 
                the USDA ranked number one hunger state)

       On page 17, line 1 strike ``; and'' and insert ``; and for 
     the Oregon State University Agriculture Extension Service, 
     $176,000 for the Food Electronically and Effectively 
     Distributed (FEED) website demonstration project; and''; line 
     8, strike ``$12,107,000'' and insert ``$12,283,000'' and 
     strike ``$426,505,000'' and insert ``$426,680,000''; on line 
     19, strike ``$43,541,000'' and insert ``$43,365,000''; on 
     line 25, strike ``6,000,000'' and insert ``$5,824,000''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl 
for accepting this important amendment to S. 2536, the Agriculture 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
  According to the USDA, Oregon ranks first in hunger and seventh in 
food insecurity in the nation. This amendment will fund, at $176,000, a 
demonstration project pairing technology and teamwork: The Food 
Electronically and Effectively Distributed FEED Website Demonstration 
Project.
  As the only state in the nation with a statewide food bank system in 
place, the Oregon Food Bank, as well as an organized and active 
agricultural community, Oregon is prepared to develop and use the FEED 
website to provide a national model for other states interested in 
pursuing an organized statewide anti-hunger campaign.
  Developed and used in conjunction with Oregon food producers, 
processors, distributors, transporters, and anti-hunger agents, as well 
as the UDA and state agriculture extension agents the FEED website will 
transform the current anti-hunger food distribution network by using 
the power of Internet technology to support and facilitate real-time 
communication links between those with food, those who need food and 
those who can transport food.
  The FEED website will also provide a forum for sharing information 
about innovative anti-hunger efforts, both legislative and 
organizational, as well as links to other existing government, non-
profit, and anti-hunger web sites to increase information sharing 
between active organizations and people in need.


                           amendment no. 3991

 (Purpose: To increase the Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing income 
                                limits)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Hereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     consider any borrower whose income does not exceed 115 
     percent of the median family income of the United States as 
     meeting the eligibility requirements for a borrower contained 
     in section 502(h)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 
     1472(h)(2)).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3992

       In Division B, strike section 1106 and insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 1106. The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities 
     and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make 
     and administer supplemental payments to dairy producers who 
     received a payment under section 805 of Public Law 106-78 in 
     an amount equal to thirty-five percent of the reduction in 
     market value of milk production in 2000, as determined by the 
     Secretary, based on price estimates as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, from the previous five-year average 
     and on the base production of the producer used to make a 
     payment under section

[[Page 15607]]

     805 of Public Law 106-78: Provided, That these funds shall be 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary shall make payments to producers under this 
     section in a manner consistent with and subject to the same 
     limitations on payments and eligible production as, the 
     payments to dairy producers under section 805 of Public Law 
     106-78: Provided further, That the Secretary shall make 
     provisions for making payments, in addition, to new 
     producers: Provided further, That for any producers, 
     including new producers, whose base production was less than 
     twelve months for purposes of section 805 of Public Law 106-
     78, the producer's base production for the purposes of 
     payments under this section may be, at the producer's option, 
     the production of that producer in the twelve months 
     preceding the enactment of this section or the producer's 
     base production under the program operated under section 805 
     of Public Law 106-78 subject to such limitations as apply to 
     other producers: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     necessary to carry out this section shall be available only 
     to the extent that an official budget request for the entire 
     amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3993

    (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
    emergency loans to poultry producers to rebuild chicken houses 
                        destroyed by disasters)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   .--Section 321(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Loans to poultry farmers.--
       ``(A) Inability to obtain insurance.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry 
     farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken 
     house for which the farmer did not have hazard insurance at 
     the time of the loss, if the farmer--

       ``(I) applied for, but was unable, to obtain hazard 
     insurance for the chicken house;
       ``(II) uses the loan to rebuild the chicken house in 
     accordance with industry standards in effect on the date the 
     farmer submits an application for the loan (referred to in 
     this paragraph as `current industry standards');
       ``(III) obtains, for the term of the loan, hazard insurance 
     for the full market value of the chicken house; and
       ``(IV) meets the other requirements for the loan under this 
     subtitle.

       ``(ii) Amount.--Subject to the limitation contained in 
     Sec. 324(a)(2) the amount of a loan made to a poultry farmer 
     under clause (i) shall be an amount that will allow the 
     farmer to rebuild the chicken house in accordance with 
     current industry standards.
       ``(B) Loans to comply with current industry standards.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry 
     farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken 
     house for which the farmer had hazard insurance at the time 
     of the loss, if--

       ``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance is less than the 
     cost of rebuilding the chicken house in accordance with 
     current industry standards;
       ``(II) the farmer uses the loan to rebuild the chicken 
     house in accordance with current industry standards;
       ``(III) the farmer obtains, for the term of the loan, 
     hazard insurance for the full market value of the chicken 
     house; and
       ``(IV) the farmer meets the other requirements for the loan 
     under this subtitle.

       ``(ii) Amount.--Subject to the limitation contained in 
     Sec. 324(a)(2) the amount of a loan made to a poultry farmer 
     under clause (i) shall be the difference between--

       ``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance obtained by the 
     farmer; and
       ``(II) the cost of rebuilding the chicken house in 
     accordance with current industry standards.''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3994

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding preference for 
              assistance for victims of domestic violence)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PREFERENCE FOR 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, in selecting public agencies and nonprofit 
     organizations to provide transitional housing under section 
     592(c) of subtitle G of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11408a(c)), should 
     consider preferences for agencies and organizations that 
     provide transitional housing for individuals and families who 
     are homeless as a result of domestic violence.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3995

   (Purpose: To allocate appropriated funds for early detection and 
treatment concerning childhood lead poisoning at sites participating in 
  the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
                               children)

       On page 50, line 6, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this heading shall be made available for sites 
     participating in the special supplemental nutrition program 
     for women, infants, and children to--
       ``(1) determine whether a child eligible to participate in 
     the program has received a blood lead screening test, using a 
     test that is appropriate for age and risk factors, upon the 
     enrollment of the child in the program;
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3996

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs in order 
         to accelerate the review of generic drug applications)

       On page 56, line 9, strike ``$313,143,000'' and insert 
     ``$315,143,000''.
       On page 57, line 2, strike ``$78,589,000'' and insert 
     ``$76,589,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3997

 (Purpose: To provide funds for the cleanup of methamphetamine labs by 
                    State and local law enforcement)

       On page 96 the modified division B after line 2, insert the 
     following:

        Drug Enforcement Administration (Domestic Enhancements)

    methamphetamine lab cleanup assistance for state and local law 
                              enforcement

       For an additional amount for drug enforcement 
     administration, $5,000,000 for the Drug Enforcement Agency to 
     assist in State and local methamphetamine lab cleanup 
     (including reimbursement for costs incurred by State and 
     local governments for lab cleanup since March 2000):Provided, 
     That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent 
     an official budget request for $5,000,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined by the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3998

       On page 4, line 12, before the period at the end of the 
     line, insert ``: Provided, That the Chief Financial Officer 
     shall actively market cross-serving activities of the 
     National Finance Center''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3999

            (Purpose: To fund biomass-based energy research)

       On page 13, line 13, strike ``$62,207,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$63,157,000''.
       On page 13, line 16, strike ``$121,350,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$120,400,000''.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Cochran and 
Harkin for their assistance in getting this proposal included in the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill for FY 2001. The biomass program is a 
collaborative effort between Oklahoma State University and Mississippi 
State University.
  We are now 56 percent dependent on foreign oil. It is projected that 
by 2020 we will be more than 65 percent dependent on oil from foreign 
nations. Such dependency is a major threat to our national security. We 
need to make every effort possible to reduce and curb this dependency. 
This program will aid us in this effort.
  The effort between these two universities will focus on the continued 
development of a unique gasification-bioconversion process at OSU that 
utilizes biomass including crop residues, underutilized grasses, and 
plant byproducts.
  Those conducting the research consist of a senior team of nationally 
recognized experts in biomass production, feedstock harvesting and 
processing of technologies, environmental impact assessment, and 
biochemical process.
  I ask my colleagues for their support of this unique opportunity for 
Oklahoma, Mississippi and for the nation.


                           amendment no. 4000

(Purpose: To provide fiscal year 2000 supplemental contingent emergency 
   funding to the Department of the Treasury for the Customs Service 
                      Automated Commercial System)

       On page 93 of division B, as modified, after line 21, 
     insert the following:

                    ``GENERAL PROVISION--THIS TITLE

       ``Sec.  . In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in Public Law 106-58 to the Department of the 
     Treasury, Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments 
     Programs, $123,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2001,

[[Page 15608]]

     for maintaining and operating the current Customs Service 
     Automated Commercial System: Provided, That the funds shall 
     not be obligated until the Customs Service has submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations an expenditure plan which 
     has been approved by the Treasury Investment Review Board, 
     the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management 
     and Budget: Provided further, That none of the funds may be 
     obligated to change the functionality of the Automated 
     Commercial System itself: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for $123,000,000, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount as an emergency requirement as defined in 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount made 
     available under this section is designated by the Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Chairman and the 
Committee including $123,000,000 in emergency funding for the Customs 
Service Automated Commercial System, or ACS. The current legacy 
computer system of the Customs Service is in dire need of this 
emergency funding. This 16 year old system regularly experiences what 
is called ``brownouts'' or system-wide outages. When this system goes 
down, believe it or not, the Customs Service must process all entries 
by hand. These outages are only becoming more frequent and they are 
lasting longer and longer. You can imagine the delays at the border 
that this situation causes. For example, in an outage in March at the 
Buffalo port, a five-hour delay generated so much paper that the entry 
documents were piled so high Customs could not see their customers on 
the other side of the counter. Not only do these outages create long 
lines at the ports, but after the system is back up and running, 
Customs employees must then work overtime trying to enter all of the 
paper entries generated during the outage. Therefore, Mr. President, I 
am pleased that the Committee has included this funding to address this 
very serious issue.


                           amendment no. 4001

(Purpose: To fully fund the Food and Drug Administration's food safety 
                         initiative activities)

       On page 57, line 2, strike ``$78,589,000'' and insert 
     ``$72,589,000''.
       On page 57, line 10, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That in addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated under this heading to the Food and 
     Drug Administration, an additional $6,000,000 shall be made 
     available of which $5,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     Centers for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related 
     field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs, and 
     $1,000,000 shall be made available to the National Center for 
     Toxicological Research''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. The American food supply is one of the safest in the 
world--but it is not safe enough. Over 75 million Americans a year are 
stricken by disease caused by contaminated food they eat. Each year, 
9,000 people--mostly the very young and the very old--die as a result. 
The costs of medical treatment and losses in productivity for these 
illnesses are as high as $37 billion annually.
  The emergence of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and the 
increase in the number of organisms resistant to antibiotics, are 
compounding these problems and making foodborne illnesses an 
increasingly serious public health challenge.
  Americans deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe, 
regardless of their source. Yet too many citizens today are at 
unnecessary risk of foodborne disease. This Congress can make a 
difference. The FDA requested a budget increase of $30 million in 2001 
for its Food Safety Initiative activities. With these additional funds, 
the FDA can improve its inspection of high-risk food establishments and 
strengthen its laboratory capabilities. Without this funding, the 
agency will conduct 700 fewer inspections next year. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of protecting our 
food supply by granting the FDA the majority of its requested increase 
for food safety. The amendment I propose will give the FDA the 
additional $6 million it needs for these efforts.
  In response to improved surveillance and increased sampling and 
testing, illnesses from the most common bacterial foodborne pathogens 
decreased by 21% from 1997 to 1999. As a result, 855,000 fewer 
Americans each year suffer from foodborne diseases. But contaminated 
food still remains a significant public health problem.
  Recently, a new strain of an organism contaminated oysters in Texas, 
and caused an epidemic of diarrhea. This year, the FDA recalled several 
smoked fish products manufactured in New York because of outbreaks of 
disease. In March, 500 college students in Massachusetts became ill 
with Norwalk-like virus. Each year there are also at least 4700 cases 
of Salmonella in Massachusetts. We must do more to protect our citizens 
from foodborne diseases.
  Imported foods are a significant part of the problem and often pose 
especially serious health risks. Americans are consuming foods from 
other countries at increasing rates. Since 1992, the number of food 
imports has tripled. At that time, the FDA was able to inspect only 8% 
of these imports. Since then the rate of FDA inspections of imported 
food has dropped to less than 1%, because resources did not increase 
for monitoring these imports.
  Other countries have often not implemented food safety protections 
comparable to those in the United States, and general sanitary 
conditions are often poor. As a consequence, foods from such countries 
are more likely to be contaminated with disease-producing organisms. In 
1995, 242 people contracted Salmonella from alfalfa sprouts imported 
from the Netherlands. In 1996, over 1,400 people became ill from 
contaminated raspberries from Guatemala. Just this year, infected 
shrimp from Vietnam caused Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks.
  In earlier decades, diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera were 
the focus of food safety concerns. Today diseases caused by dangerous 
new strains of E. coli have become primary causes of foodborne illness. 
These new organisms necessitate increased investment in research, 
technology, and surveillance to protect the safety of our food supply.
  Food safety are also especially important to protect the growing 
number of individuals in vulnerable populations, such as young 
children, the elderly, those with lowered immunity from HIV, and those 
with inadequate access to health care.
  By providing the FDA with the necessary resources to combat foodborne 
diseases, we can protect tens of millions of our fellow citizens across 
the country each year. Investment in food safety is an investment in 
the health of every American. Congress should give the FDA the 
resources it needs in order to ensure the safety of the food we eat. 
The amendment I am proposing is a major step to meet this challenge, 
and I urge the Senate to approve it.


                           amendment no. 4002

       On page 71, line 3, strike the comma and insert the 
     following: ``prior to July 1, 2001,''.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to report on an agreement reached 
today between Senator Inouye and myself regarding the Fort Reno 
Agriculture Research Station at El Reno, Oklahoma.
  Our agreement delays any decision on the ARS until the next 
Administration. It also preserves the right of Congress to play a role 
in the future of the ARS. Our agreement ensures that any decision made 
about the research station will be made based on the merits of the work 
performed there rather than a decision based on November political 
considerations.
  The agreement should not be read to mean that the research station 
will be eliminated, nor that the lands at Fort Reno should or will be 
returned to the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe of Oklahoma.
  I do not want the status of the Agriculture Research Station to be 
influenced by presidential politics, which has been the case in the 
past. This agreement will help prevent the future of the research 
station from becoming an election-year tool and better protect both the 
tribe and the research station from pressures surrounding the November 
election.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Nickles that Congress

[[Page 15609]]

should have oversight of this issue and that decisions made about the 
research station should be made based on the merits of the work 
performed there rather than political considerations.
  If one day Fort Reno is declared surplus or excess property by USDA, 
I hope that the Cheyenne and Arapaho's interest in the land will be 
considered. I believe they have a legitimate case in their pursuit of 
that land, and I look forward to working further with Senator Nickles 
on this issue.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4003

  (Purpose: To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk 
 products or casein from being labeled as domestic natural cheese, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 740. Natural Cheese Standard.--(a) Prohibition.--
     Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 341) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Whenever''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The Commissioner may not use any Federal funds to 
     amend section 133.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling), to 
     include dry ultra-filtered milk or casein in the definition 
     of the term `milk' or `nonfat milk', as specified in the 
     standards of identity for cheese and cheese products 
     published at part 133 of title 21, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or 
     ruling).''.
       (b) Importation Study.--Not later than __ days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall--
       (1) conduct a study to determine--
       (A) the quantity of ultra-filtered milk that is imported 
     annually into the United States; and
       (B) the end use of that imported milk; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report that describes the results 
     of the study.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 4004

       On page 13, line 13, strike ``62,207,000'' and insert 
     ``62,707,000''.
       On page 13, line 16, strike ``121,350,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``120,850,000''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment will provide $500,000, 
for Satsuma Orange research at Auburn University in Alabama. These 
funds will be used to conduct research on developing technologies that 
reduce freeze damage, necessary for consistent production and industry 
expansion for the Satsuma Orange in the United States.
  These funds will be used specifically for studies to reduce damage by 
fall and winter freezes suffered by the Satsuma Orange trees; studies 
evaluating micro sprinkler irrigation systems as a means of protecting 
the crop against freezes; evaluations for cold hardiness, cropping, 
harvest time, and fruit quality; and studies to determine critical 
temperatures that kill the crop and the factors that affect cold 
hardiness.


                           amendment no. 4005

       At the appropriate place in title VII insert the following: 
     ``None of the funds appropriated by this act to the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture may be used to implement or 
     administer the final rule issued in Docket Number 97-110, at 
     65 Federal Register 37608-37669 until such time as USDA 
     completes an independent peer review of the rule and the risk 
     assessment underlying the rule.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4006

(Purpose: To require that any award entered into under the dairy export 
  incentive program that is canceled or voided is made available for 
                    reassignment under the program)

       On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Dairy Export Incentive Program.--Section 153(c) of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5)(A) any award entered into under the program that is 
     canceled or voided after June 30, 1995, is made available for 
     reassignment under the program as long as a World Trade 
     Organization violation is not incurred; and
       ``(B) any reassignment under subparagraph (A) is not 
     reported as a new award when reporting the use of the 
     reassigned tonnage to the World Trade Organization.'';
       On page 36, line 9, strike ``749,284,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``759,284,000''; on page 36, line 12, strike 
     ``634,360,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``644,360,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4007

(Purpose: To require the use of a certain amount of appropriated funds 
       to carry out the Food Distribution on Indian Reservations)

       On page 50, line 22, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, of funds made 
     available under this heading and not already appropriated to 
     the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 
     established under section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2013(b), (1) an additional amount not to exceed 
     $7,300,000 shall be used to purchase bison for the FDPIR and 
     to provide a mechanism for the purchases from Native American 
     producers and cooperative organizations''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4008

       On page 13, line 13, strike ``$62,207,000'' and insert 
     ``$62,707,000''.
       On page 13, line 16, strike ``$121,350,000'' and insert * * 
     *

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the emerging field of bioinformatics uses 
information technology to analyze the billions of bits of data that 
create a human or plant genome. The research efforts at Virginia Tech 
will complement and support efforts by the Department to develop new 
bioinformatic tools, biological data bases, and other information 
management tools, which hold the promise of reinvigorating our rural 
communities through high-technology jobs in agri-biotechnology. This 
amendment provides $500,000 to support Virginia Polytechnic Institute's 
(VPI) Bioinformatics initiative.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4009

     (Purpose: To set aside funding for the distance learning and 
 telemedicine program to promote employment of rural residents through 
                              teleworking)

       On page 47, line 8, after ``areas,'', insert the following: 
     ``of which not more than $3,000,000 may be used to make 
     grants to rural entities to promote employment of rural 
     residents through teleworking, including to provide 
     employment-related services, such as outreach to employers, 
     training, and job placement, and to pay expenses relating to 
     providing high-speed communications services, and''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4010

 (Purpose: To extend the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to 
 provide grants for State mediation programs dealing with agricultural 
                                issues)

       On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 740. State Agricultural Mediation Programs.--(a) 
     Eligible Person; Mediation Services.--Section 501 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Issues covered.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be certified as a qualifying State, 
     the mediation program of the State must provide mediation 
     services to persons described in paragraph (2) that are 
     involved in agricultural loans (regardless of whether the 
     loans are made or guaranteed by the Secretary or made by a 
     third party).
       ``(B) Other issues.--The mediation program of a qualifying 
     State may provide mediation services to persons described in 
     paragraph (2) that are involved in 1 or more of the following 
     issues under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
     Agriculture:
       ``(i) Wetlands determinations.
       ``(ii) Compliance with farm programs, including 
     conservation programs.
       ``(iii) Agricultural credit.
       ``(iv) Rural water loan programs.
       ``(v) Grazing on National Forest System land.
       ``(vi) Pesticides.
       ``(vii) Such other issues as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Persons eligible for mediation.--The persons referred 
     to in paragraph (1) include--
       ``(A) agricultural producers;
       ``(B) creditors of producers (as applicable); and
       ``(C) persons directly affected by actions of the 
     Department of Agriculture.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Definition of Mediation Services.--In this section, 
     the term `mediation services', with respect to mediation or a 
     request for mediation, may include all activities related 
     to--
       ``(1) the intake and scheduling of cases;
       ``(2) the provision of background and selected information 
     regarding the mediation process;
       ``(3) financial advisory and counseling services (as 
     appropriate) performed by a person other than a State 
     mediation program mediator; and
       ``(4) the mediation session.''.
       (b) Use of Mediation Grants.--Section 502(c) of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5102(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Each'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Each''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 15610]]

       ``(2) Operation and administration expenses.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), operation and administration expenses for 
     which a grant may be used include--
       ``(A) salaries;
       ``(B) reasonable fees and costs of mediators;
       ``(C) office rent and expenses, such as utilities and 
     equipment rental;
       ``(D) office supplies;
       ``(E) administrative costs, such as workers' compensation, 
     liability insurance, the employer's share of Social Security, 
     and necessary travel;
       ``(F) education and training;
       ``(G) security systems necessary to ensure the 
     confidentiality of mediation sessions and records of 
     mediation sessions;
       ``(H) costs associated with publicity and promotion of the 
     mediation program;
       ``(I) preparation of the parties for mediation; and
       ``(J) financial advisory and counseling services for 
     parties requesting mediation.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 506 of the 
     Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5106) is amended by 
     striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2005''.


                           amendment no. 4011

 (Purpose: To provide increased funding for the Extension farm safety 
program, including funding at a level of $3,055,000 for the AgrAbility 
                                project)

       On page 13, line 16, strike $121,350,000 and insert 
     ``$120,650,000''.
       On page 15, line 2, strike $494,744,000 and insert 
     ``$494,044,000''.
       On page 16, line 6, strike $3,400,000 and insert 
     ``$4,100,000''.
       On page 17, line 8, strike $426,504,000 and insert 
     ``$427,204,000''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4012

    (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
  equitable relief to an owner or operator that has entered into and 
   violated a contract under the environmental conservation acreage 
  reserve program if the owner or operator took actions in good faith 
reliance on the action or advice of an authorized representative of the 
                               Secretary)

       On page 75, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 740. Good Faith Reliance.--The Food Security Act of 
     1985 is amended by inserting after section 1230 (16 U.S.C. 
     3830) the following:

     ``SEC. 1230A. GOOD FAITH RELIANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (d) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the 
     Secretary shall provide equitable relief to an owner or 
     operator that has entered into a contract under this chapter, 
     and that is subsequently determined to be in violation of the 
     contract, if the owner or operator in attempting to comply 
     with the terms of the contact and enrollment requirements 
     took actions in good faith reliance on the action or advice 
     of an authorized representative of the Secretary.
       ``(b) Types of Relief.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) to the extent the Secretary determines that an owner 
     or operator has been injured by good faith reliance described 
     in subsection (a), allow the owner or operator to do any one 
     or more of the following--
       ``(A) to retain payments received under the contract;
       ``(B) to continue to receive payments under the contract;
       ``(C) to keep all or part of the land covered by the 
     contract enrolled in the applicable program under this 
     chapter;
       ``(D) to reenroll all or part of the land covered by the 
     contract in the applicable program under this chapter; or
       ``(E) or any other equitable relief the Secretary deems 
     appropriate; and
       ``(2) require the owner or operator to take such actions as 
     are necessary to remedy any failure to comply with the 
     contract.
       ``(c) Relation to Other Law.--The authority to provide 
     relief under this section shall be in addition to any other 
     authority provided in this or any other Act.
       ``(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply to a pattern 
     of conduct in which an authorized representative of the 
     Secretary takes actions or provides advice with respect to an 
     owner or operator that the representative and the owner or 
     operator know are inconsistent with applicable law (including 
     regulations).''.
       ``(e) Applicability of Relief.--Relief under this section 
     shall be available for contracts in effect on January 1, 2000 
     and for all subsequent contracts.''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 4013

  (Purpose: To require the publication of data collected on imported 
                                 herbs)

       On page 89, after line 19, add the following:
       Sec. 1111. Availability of Data on Imported Herbs.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     shall publish and otherwise make available (including through 
     electronic media) data collected monthly by each Secretary on 
     herbs imported into the United States.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 4014

  (Purpose: To adjust the limitation to carry out research related to 
                                tobacco)

       On page 15, line 6, before the period, insert: ``: 
     Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on 
     the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of 
     tobacco''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to be guided by the 
interest of the Senate. I have a list of the amendments which I am 
prepared to read if Senators would like. I can send the list to the 
desk and have it printed in the Record. I asked my staff if we read the 
list last year, and they said we did not. Maybe considering the mood of 
the Senate, I should not read the list.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, can the Senator estimate how much total 
spending is in those amendments?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I do not have an estimate. They are within the budget 
allocation of the committee. None of them will require a waiver. There 
are two amendments that are attached to this bill that are not within 
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. One is related to 
methamphetamine laboratory cleanup which comes under Commerce-Justice, 
and another is related to Customs Service computer systems which comes 
under the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
managers' package be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3982 through 4014), en bloc, were agreed to.


                ars research project in east lansing, mi

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate S. 2536, the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I am concerned that 
this bill omits an appropriation included in the House version of this 
bill (H.R. 4461).
  H.R. 4461 appropriates $309,600 for the Agriculture Research Service 
(ARS) to fund research addressing Postharvest Handling and 
Mechanization to Minimize Damage for Fruits. This research is vital, 
not only for Michigan, but for all fruit producing states.
  This research has the potential to allow fruit growers to realize 
greater profits by better ensuring fruit quality. Given the significant 
potential of this program to assist fruit producers in my home state, I 
am troubled by its exclusion in S. 2536.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his comments. He 
is correct in stating that the House Appropriations Act for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies for Fiscal Year 2001 funds research regarding 
Postharvest Handling and Mechanization to Minimize Damage for Fruits 
while the Senate counterpart does not.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would appreciate the Senate conferees giving full 
consideration to the House position on this matter.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I assure the Senator from Michigan that this specific 
request will be carefully considered in conference as I can understand 
how important this matter is.


                      fda's adverse event reports

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support an increase to the Food 
and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Monitoring System regarding 
dietary supplements. This would be administered by the FDA's Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). This increase in FDA's 
Adverse Event Monitoring System for dietary supplements is an important 
component in the overall effort to implement fully the Dietary 
Supplement Health and Education Act.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am proud to join my distinguished colleague, the Senior 
Senator from Utah, in supporting this endeavor. This proposed increase 
in FDA's Adverse Event Monitoring System for dietary supplements is an 
important component in the overall effort to implement fully the 
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. It also

[[Page 15611]]

continues our mutual efforts to promote better public health and 
consumer safety. The FDA monitors adverse events related to dietary 
supplements. The dietary supplement sales have doubled in the past five 
years. In fact, surveys indicate that nearly half of all Americans use 
some type of dietary supplement, spending over $12 billion annually for 
these products. FDA estimates that the industry markets approximately 
29,000 of these products, which are sold under 75,000 distinct labels.
  Mr. HATCH. Despite this phenomenal growth in the supplement industry, 
the FDA currently does not have the resources to process adverse event 
reports in a timely manner and with comprehensive information. As a 
result, a substantial backlog currently exists in reviewing adverse 
event reports in the dietary supplement area. However, we must assure 
that these funds for AERs are effectively spent. Accordingly, Mr. 
Chairman, I respectfully request that you work with Senator Harkin and 
myself on this issue. More specifically, we request that the FDA be 
directed to assign additional personnel to maintain the timeliness and 
accuracy of the AER system for dietary supplements. In addition, 
Congress needs to be assured that all published reports are accompanied 
by the results of a scientific evaluation of the link between the 
product and the adverse event and evidence of timely prior notification 
of any manufacturer or distributor mentioned in the report.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate your bringing this issue to the attention 
of the Committee, and I will carefully consider this issue affecting 
the FDA's Adverse Event Monitoring System regarding dietary 
supplements. I thank the Senator for raising this matter to my 
attention.


     USDA-ARS New England Plant, Soil and Water Research Laboratory

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his continuing 
support for the New England, Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory 
in Orono, Maine. Quite frankly, with his help and the support of his 
Subcommittee, we have literally snatched this USDA-Agricultural 
Research Service potato research laboratory--so important to the Maine 
potato industry--from the jaws of defeat ever since the Administration 
called for its closing in 1995. Not only have we kept the doors open, 
but with his support, the research facility on the University of Maine 
campus in Orono now has not only Dr. Wayne Honeycutt as its very 
capable lead scientist, but has added two plant pathologists, a 
research chemist, and a soon to be added research agronomist because of 
his support last year. I want to once again re-emphasize just how 
critical the lab's survival is to the state of Maine, its potato 
growers, and its economy.
  Ninety-five percent of the potato acreage in the six states in the 
New England region are in Maine, and the lab has the benefit of being 
in close proximity to the grower's fields. There has been a long and 
productive history of collaborative potato research involving the 
state, the university research program, and private agricultural 
interests.
  The laboratory's last need is for a soil physicist to complete its 
scientific staff and not for a soil pathologist as originally requested 
and for which $300,000 is provided for as stated on page 31 of the 
Report Language for S. 2536. I request that this technical correction 
be made for a soil physicist.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senior Senator from Maine for her tireless 
efforts over these past five years to not only keep the ARS laboratory 
open but to assure that the facility is staffed with skilled scientists 
and support staff that continue to be of great service to the 
agriculture community in Maine. This research facility has my support 
and the appropriate technical change will be made for a soil physicist.
  Ms. SNOWE. Once again, I thank the chairman for his support of 
agriculture throughout my State, and I praise him for your fine 
leadership as Chair of the Subcommittee.


           Quality and Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I want to thank the Senator from 
Mississippi, for drafting an excellent FY2001 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill that will help meet the needs of our nation's 
farmers and agricultural communities. I especially want to thank him 
for working closely with me to ensure that issues affecting the Idaho 
agriculture are addressed in the bill.
  I know that the Senator from Mississippi works hard with limited 
resources to fund worthwhile and fiscally responsible agricultural 
research programs. One important area of agriculture research involves 
increasing the shelf life of our food, while maintaining its quality, 
and one of the most promising methods is irradiation. In Idaho, Idaho 
State University is home to the Idaho Accelerator Center (IAC) which is 
proposing a research program to investigate the effects of small 
amounts of irradiation--as compared to conventional food irradiation--
on the behavior of potatoes. IAC and several Idaho-based partners have 
been studying the positive effects of low doses of x-ray and electron 
beam irradiation on the storage properties and shelf life of potatoes. 
Significant improvement in shelf life has been demonstrated over the 
entire range of standard storage conditions, with virtually no decline 
in quality. The results indicate that long term storage losses can be 
reduced to very low levels and that shelf life during transport, 
storage by vendors and by consumers is extended indefinitely. It is 
believed that these findings will also hold true for other commodities 
such as onions, sugar beets, etc. These results are achieved without 
chemicals, radioactive materials or other environmentally harmful 
processes. The irradiation is provided by the electron beams produced 
from compact, portable high-energy electron-linear accelerators.
  While I know that the project is not funded in the Senate bill, I 
want to ask the Chairman to consider the IAC proposal during Conference 
on the bill. This is a worthy project and one that I am confident will 
lead to real results that will benefit our farmers and consumers.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Idaho 
for his kind remarks. We have tried hard to accommodate every 
worthwhile request but, as we all know, we are constrained by our 
budget allocation. I want to assure him, however, that I will 
thoroughly review the request made by the Idaho Accelerator Center at 
Idaho State University and will give it appropriate consideration 
during Conference.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I want to thank the Chairman for his 
willingness to look at this, and for all he does for American 
agriculture and a safe, secure, food supply.


               Montana Food Stamp Standard Utility Waiver

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment that 
Senator Burns and I were working with the Committee on in this 
Agriculture Appropriations bill that would help Montana's senior 
citizens and low-income citizens. In particular, this measure would 
provide an additional $500,000 to enable the State of Montana continue 
its food stamp program standard utility allowance (``SUA'') waiver. 
Montana is currently operating under an agreement with the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to continue extending the waiver.
  Montana has approximately 25,000 households using food stamps. Of 
this number, over 19,000 would be tragically affected by the loss of 
this waiver. For example, many elderly food stamp recipients who live 
on fixed incomes and/or reside in public housing would be hard hit be 
the loss of the Standard Utility Allowance waiver. In many such cases, 
records from the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services 
indicate that the loss could be higher than fifty percent of the 
benefit.
  Second, the state of Montana is currently serving 952 ``able-bodied 
adults without dependents.'' Many of these are either homeless or at 
risk of losing their housing. Decreasing their current food stamp 
benefit would only exacerbate their difficult situations.

[[Page 15612]]

  Finally, many of these food stamp recipients live in Montana's 634 
group homes for the disabled. The loss of the Standard Utility 
Allowance would decrease food stamps for these individuals with 
disabilities creating further hardship for group homes which already 
operate with very little budget flexibility.
  The entire Montana delegation has worked hard over the past two years 
in conjunction with our Montana Department of Public Health and Human 
Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of 
Management and Budget to maintain this critical program. I am pleased 
that Senator Cochran is willing to work with Senator Burns and myself 
to address this issue within the context of this Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. BURNS. I whole-heartedly support this amendment which is so 
critical to so many Montana families. The SUA waiver is of particular 
concern because long winters and high utility costs are something all 
Montanans face, regardless of income. This waiver allows a credit to a 
household's income when determining eligibility and amount of food 
stamp benefits. Because of the unique set of challenges facing 
Montanans in terms of extreme weather conditions, termination of the 
Standard Utility Allowance could very well put many needy households at 
risk of experiencing hunger.
  The current SUA waiver is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2000. 
However, the USDA Food Nutrition Service has conditionally approved the 
extension of the Montana SUA waiver for an additional year to September 
30, 2001. A primary condition to that approval is congressional 
approval of adequate funding.
  To date, this waiver has been very successful in its goals to provide 
nutritional assistance to low-income citizens. I strongly support 
funding this program at $500,000 and will work with my colleagues to 
make that happen by the end of conference.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senators from Montana for working with the 
Agriculture Appropriations Committee to bring to our attention the need 
for funding of this important measure.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Cochran, for your support. Montana's 
hungry families appreciate your efforts.


            BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE FOR MODEL PLANT SPECIES

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator 
from New Mexico regarding the establishment of a Bioinformatics 
Institute for Model Plant Species as a collaborative effort between the 
USDA Agriculture Research Service, New Mexico State University, and 
Iowa State University.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be pleased to speak with my colleagues regarding 
this issue. I understand that this is a cooperative approach to enhance 
the accessibility and utility of genomic information for plant genetic 
research, and Senator Domenici championed the authorization for this 
institute in the recently enacted Agricultural Risk Protection Act.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The chairman is correct that this cooperatively 
operated institute would reduce duplication of effort as research 
institutions across the country find the need to develop bioinformatics 
systems to validate and disseminate results from plant genomic studies. 
Three model plant species have been identified by the National Science 
Foundation, and this institute would incorporate software platforms 
that will enable the integration of these model plant bioinformatic 
resources with crop plant bioinformatic resources.
  Mr. HARKIN. Over the past several months, my staff and I have had the 
pleasure of discussing this collaboration between Iowa State 
University, New Mexico State University, and the Agriculture Research 
Service with representatives of the National Center for Genome 
Resources, and want to express my support for establishing this 
institute. It would bring research scientists from the State 
Agriculture Experiment Stations and ARS together with the expertise in 
bioinformatics and software platforms developed by NCGR and its work on 
the Human Genome Project. Through this combination of expertise, the 
institute would greatly reduce the chances of having to ``reinvent the 
wheel,'' so to speak, as genomic research continues to expand into 
greater numbers of agricultural plant species.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I concur with my colleagues' assessment that this 
institute would provide a valuable addition in the research area of 
plant genomics. It would let us avoid redundant genomics research in 
crop species and leverage information for crop improvement. Funding for 
this institute would augment existing skills and resources, rather than 
building new bioinformatics infrastructure.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Funding from the Agricultural Research Service will be 
needed to establish this institute. I understand that with the funding 
provided for ARS in this bill, that may not be possible. I ask the 
Chairman if he would assist us in the upcoming Conference Committee to 
ensure that ARS funding is adequate to accommodate this important 
project?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue to 
the attention of the Senate. I appreciate the significance of 
establishing this institute, and I will make every effort to 
accommodate their request in the Conference.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and 
look forward to working with him in the Conference.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I, too, thank the Chairman for his assurance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee.


            STUDY TO IMPROVE AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 
regarding a study to improve farming practices in Africa.
  As the chairman knows, the Trade and Development Act of 2000 was 
signed into law in May. This Act authorized a study on ways to improve 
African agricultural practices. This study will be conducted by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture in consultation with a land grant 
university and a not-for-profit organization that has firsthand 
knowledge of African farming.
  While a two year study is authorized, it is my understanding that 
ample data and research exists supporting the need to establish a more 
formal relationship to improve farming practices in Africa.
  To that end, I ask the Chairman if he would work with me to ensure 
that the USDA takes up this study in a timely fashion and incorporates 
the existing data so that we can formally implement these 
recommendations.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I want to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and 
appreciate him bringing this issue to my attention.
  As move forward, I will work with him to ensure that the USDA takes 
into consideration the existing data and research, and completes the 
study within a reasonable timeframe.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chairman for his commitment, and appreciate 
his willingness to work with me on this important initiative.


                          BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 
2001 Appropriations Act for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
Agencies (S. 2536). Included in this bill is funding which will, among 
other things, assist our nation's farmers, aid rural development, 
preserve delicate ecosystems and provide food assistance to our 
nation's most needy individuals. I support these measures, but I also 
realize that there are urgent agricultural emergencies which cannot be 
covered by the scope of the annual appropriations process.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Michigan is correct in stating that 
frequently there exist many agricultural emergencies which are best 
addressed by the action of the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. One agricultural 
emergency that currently affects my home state of Michigan, and which 
threatens

[[Page 15613]]

livestock in the Upper Midwest is bovine tuberculosis (TB). Due to a 
host of factors, Michigan is the only state in the Union where bovine 
TB has actually been transferred from livestock into the wild. Most 
frequently, this disease has been transferred from cattle to members of 
the Cervid family, such as whitetail deer. Deer then are able to 
transfer TB to herds of cattle, wild animals or humans. As a result of 
this disease, neighboring states have restricted the entry of Michigan 
cattle, farmers have been required to test their cattle for this 
disease and some livestock producers have had to eradicate their herds. 
I would ask the Senator from Wisconsin, if he believes that the matter 
of bovine TB constitutes an emergency.
  Mr. KOHL. I agree with the Senator from Michigan that bovine TB 
constitutes an agricultural emergency.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I would hope that the 
Secretary of Agriculture would declare an emergency regarding bovine 
TB. Doing so would assist areas where this disease is present and 
prevent the further spread of bovine TB.


                        Red River Trade Council

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Agriculture 
Diversity Project, which is administered by the Red River Trade Council 
through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service. The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has funded this 
program in the past, and I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee for their support.
  As my colleagues know, one of the areas of economy that has not 
shared in the current economic boom is agriculture. The farmers and 
those who live and operate businesses in rural America are struggling 
financially to maintain not only a reasonable standard of living, but 
also the preservation of a rural lifestyle. They are desperate to find 
ways that will allow them to stay and to make a living in rural 
America.
  The Agriculture Diversification Project now underway seeks to add 
value to existing crop production, establish high value crop 
alternatives to those crops traditionally grown in the region, develop 
processing facilities, and create markets for both new crops and the 
value added products. One added dimension to the program in Fiscal Year 
2001 will be an Internet-based information resource for farmers and 
other rural residents intended for those who are interested in a 
sustainable rural economy through entrepreneurship, product 
development, and marketing. This new aspect of the project will demand 
additional resources above what the Subcommittee provided in this bill. 
I hope that we might be able to provide at least $500,000 for this 
project--which is the level of funding that the House provided in its 
bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am grateful that the Committee has recognized the need 
for this project in the past and also in the legislation being 
considered today. However, with the expansion of this project beyond 
the original states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota to 
also include Iowa, and Nebraska, and to establish the Internet resource 
a higher level of funding for this project is necessary.
  Does the Subcommittee Chairman, the senior Senator form Mississippi, 
agree that the House level of $500,000 would be a more appropriate 
funding level for this program?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand that this project is a priority for the 
Minority Leader and the Senator from North Dakota. I will work in 
conference to consider $500,000 for the Red River Trade Council's 
Agricultural Diversity Project in the final version of the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.


                      Land-Grant University System

  Mrs. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Nation's Land-Grant University 
system is very fortunate to have historically black land-grant colleges 
and universities like Southern University of my home State of 
Louisiana, Tuskegee University of Alabama and Alcorn State of 
Mississippi, to name just three of them. These universities were 
granted Land-Grant status under the Evans-Allen law enacted by Congress 
in 1890. An amendment accepted in House of Representatives during 
debate on the Agricultural Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001 
increases formula funds for research and extension science performed at 
these universities in a total amount of $6.8 million. There are 18 such 
historically black universities in America which are part of the entire 
national land-grant university system.
  The historically black land-grant universities play a very special 
and unique role in our nation. Since 1988, the base formula funding 
provided to our nation's historically black colleges has eroded. 
Funding provided to these institutions through this mechanism has 
remained flat from the previous fiscal year. Investing in the 1890s 
Land-Grant institutions is a wise investment indeed. Together, our 
historically black land-grant universities comprise a unique asset with 
the multi-cultural depth to enrich the research, extension and 
education capacity of the nation. Strengthening minority serving 
institutions and making them equal partners in the Land-Grant System 
are key elements toward improving minority access to USDA programs. Our 
universities need a significant boost in infrastructure investment to 
fully participate and compete for research, extension and education 
funding. The amendment passed by the House of Representatives would 
increase base (formula) funding and as a result would be a significant 
step in that direction. I appreciate Senator Cochran's recognizing the 
importance of this funding and hope you will give strong consideration 
during conference to acceding to the amendment passed by the House of 
Representatives. $6.8 million divided among the 18 historically black 
institutions is not much, but it does mean a great deal to these 
institutions and the people they serve through their research and 
extension programs.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I recognize the need to provide adequate support for the 
1890 institutions. The Senator will be pleased to know that this bill 
provides increases above the fiscal year 2000 level for the 1890 
institution's capacity building grants program and the facilities 
grants program. I share the Senator's interest in these institutions 
and will keep her comments in mind as we work to enhance funding for 
these programs in conference.
  Mrs. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.


             Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Credit Models

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to ask the Chairman about a small 
provision in report language, under the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service. The report encourages the agency to interface with a 
consortium of universities on developing carbon dioxide emissions 
trading credit models. I am just seeking clarification on the academic 
nature of the efforts described and the intent of the Committee.
  In numerous appropriations bills and reports, the Committee and the 
Senate have reiterated the position, consistent with the unanimously-
passed Byrd-Hagel resolution, that the Kyoto Protocol on global climate 
change and control of greenhouse gases has not been approved by the 
Senate and must not be implemented by the Administration through the 
regulatory backdoor. Every year, language to this effect has been 
included in a growing number of appropriations laws, including the 
Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000.
  My question arises because emissions trading is inextricably, and 
most visibly, linked to the limits envisioned in the Kyoto Protocol. I 
assume there is no intention in the report language to be inconsistent 
with our longstanding position on Kyoto and no implied endorsement of 
emissions trading. I would read the report as simply encouraging the 
agency in giving technical assistance to an academic research project 
relevant to agriculture.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator has correctly characterized the Committee's 
intent.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes 
about my amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill now before 
the Senate. The amendment identifies vital

[[Page 15614]]

funding for Indian Country in four programs under the Rural Community 
Advancement Program. The cosponsors of the amendment are Senators 
Campbell, Inouye, Domenici, Leahy, Daschle, Dorgan, Feinstein, Bennett, 
Murray, Johnson, Hatch, Snowe, and Conrad.
  First, I want to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for their 
work on this Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This bill provides 
funding for a number of programs that are vital to my state of New 
Mexico and to the nation.
  The rural development programs funded in this bill are especially 
important for a rural state like New Mexico. Through a variety of grant 
and loan programs, rural development is helping to make sure that our 
smaller communities are not being left behind in basic infrastructure, 
in quality of housing, in economical utilities, in community 
facilities, or in business development. Rural development is making 
tremendous progress in improving the quality of life of our smaller 
communities and in Indian Country. The basic health and well being of 
rural people in New Mexico, as well as their economic future, are much 
brighter as a result of the rural development programs.
  This amendment is straight forward. The bill already provides $24 
million for tribal programs, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking 
Member for providing this important set aside. The amendment simply 
sets the priorities for how the existing tribal funding in the bill 
should be divided among the various Rural Development Programs. Under 
our amendment, $1 million is set aside for rural business opportunity 
grants, $5 million for community facilities for tribal colleges, $15 
million for grants for drinking water and waste disposal systems, and 
$3 million for rural business enterprise grants. These priorities have 
the support of the National Congress of American Indians and the 
American Indian Higher Education Consortium.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from the NCAI and AIHEC 
supporting our amendment be included in the Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The $15 million in water and wastewater grants in this 
amendment include a special provision that allows the department to 
provide up to 100 percent of the cost of a project for the most 
economically disadvantaged tribes that can't otherwise qualify for a 
loan as normally required. A similar grant program was first 
established by Congress last year to address the urgent needs in Indian 
Country for basic water and waste water systems. I am pleased that the 
Rural Utilities Service has moved quickly this year to implement this 
new program and we are seeing immediate results. To date, 26 grants 
have been awarded to tribes in 14 states--from Maine to California. The 
average grant is a little more than $400,000. The RUS already has in 
hand requests for many millions of dollars in important projects for 
next year. This amendment will provide the funding to address these 
urgent needs.
  In addition, the amendment provides $5 million in much needed funding 
for facilities construction and maintenance at our 33 tribal colleges 
that comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, AIHEC. 
Many of these institutions are operating in donated, abandoned, and in 
some cases, even condemned structures. Hazards include leaking roofs, 
asbestos insulation, exposed and substandard wiring, and crumbling 
foundations. Tribal colleges receive little or no funding from the 
states. These institutions are located on federal trust land and are a 
federal responsibility. The $5 million provided in this amendment will 
begin to address the backlog in facility requirements for tribal 
colleges.
  The development of new businesses in Indian Country is one key to 
self sufficiency for Native American communities. The amendment 
provides $3 million in rural business enterprise grants to support the 
development of small and emerging tribal business enterprises. These 
funds can be used to develop land, construct buildings and factories, 
purchase equipment, provide road access and parking areas, extend basic 
utilities, or provide technical assistance, startup and operating 
costs, or working capital for new business.
  Finally, the amendment provides a $1 million set aside for tribal 
rural business opportunity grants. Tribes may use these funds to 
analyze business opportunities that will make use of the existing 
economic and human resources in Indian Country. Funding can also be 
used to train tribal entrepreneurs and to establish business support 
centers. Unemployment rates in Indian Country are the highest in the 
nation, sometimes topping 50 percent. Development of new business 
opportunities on tribal lands is one of the keys to improving the 
standard of living in Native American communities.
  Congress established the rural development programs to assist in the 
economic development of rural areas of the nation with the highest 
percentage of low-income residents. Today, some of the most 
economically disadvantaged communities in America are in Indian 
Country. The $24 million set aside in this bill for tribal programs 
represents only a tiny percentage of the total funding available for 
Rural Community Advancement Programs. This funding will begin to 
address the needs of some of America's poorest communities.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for their 
support for the tribal funding in this bill. These are important 
programs to help deal with the critical needs of our tribes. I hope the 
Senate will support our amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

                                              National Congress of


                                             American Indians,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2000.

     Re Support for Bingaman Tribal Amendment

       Dear Senator:The National Congress of American Indians 
     (NCAI), the oldest and most representatives Indian advocacy 
     organization, respectfully request your support for an 
     amendment to be offered by Senator Jeff Bingaman to S. 2536, 
     the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill during full Senate 
     consideration. This amendment would designate the $24 million 
     currently proposed for water and wastewater loans and grants 
     in the Indian Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs into 
     four grant programs: 1) Rural Business Opportunity Grants; 2) 
     Community Facilities Grants for Tribal College Improvements; 
     3) Drinking Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Economically 
     Disadvantaged Tribes; and 4) Rural Business Enterprise 
     Grants.
       NCAI supports this amendment because it designates the 
     funds for grant programs that are targeted to the specific 
     rural development needs of tribes and tribal colleges, rather 
     than for the general purpose of benefiting federally 
     recognized Native American tribes.
       In FY2000, Senator Bingaman was instrumental in securing 
     the original set aside of $12 million for the Indian RUS 
     program. To date, 19 Indian projects have been funded, with 
     five requests on hand, and an additional four that are or 
     forthcoming.
       NCAI respectfully request your support of the Bingaman 
     Tribal amendment when it is offered for full Senate 
     consideration. If you have any questions in regards to this 
     amendment, please contact me or Victoria Wright, NCAI 
     Legislative Associate at (202) 466-7767.
           Sincerely,
                                                   JoAnn K. Chase,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            American Indian Higher


                                         Education Consortium,

                                        Alexandria, VA, July 2000.
       Dear Senator: The 33 Tribal Colleges and Universities that 
     comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium 
     (AIHEC) respectfully request your support of the Bingaman 
     amendment to be offered during Senate consideration of the 
     FY01 Agriculture Appropriations bill (S. 2536/H.R. 4461). 
     This amendment would simply allocate the proposed $24 million 
     available for loans and grants to federally recognized 
     American Indian tribes through the Rural Community 
     Advancement Program into four grant programs: 1) Rural 
     Business Opportunity Grants; 2) Community Facilities Grants 
     for Tribal College Improvements; 3) Drinking Water and Water 
     Disposal Systems for Economically Disadvantaged Tribes; and 
     4) Rural Business Enterprise Grants.
       Tribal Colleges serve as community centers, providing 
     libraries, tribal archives, child care centers, nutrition and 
     substance abuse counseling and a broad range of other vitally 
     needed facilities to their rural communities. Yet, many of 
     our colleges are still operating in trailers, renovated 
     gymnasiums, reclaimed abandoned BIA facilities with leaking 
     roofs, exposed and substandard wiring and crumbling 
     foundations. The Federal

[[Page 15615]]

     government has never funded authorized facilities programs 
     for the Tribal Colleges. The Rural Community Programs were 
     created to assist in the development of essential community 
     facilities located in rural areas with a high concentration 
     of low-income residents. This is by definition of the 
     reservation communities served by the Tribal Colleges.
       Our 33 colleges, 26,000 students and the 250 tribal nations 
     we serve are extremely grateful to Senator Bingaman for 
     championing this effort and for your support. The inclusion 
     of the amendment will be a first step in bringing the Tribal 
     Colleges much needed resources to address critical facilities 
     needs.
           Respectfully,
                                             Veronica N. Gonzales,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the agricultural appropriations bill is 
very important bill--it provides federal assistance to our nation's 
farming communities, funds social service programs for women and 
children, and addresses natural resource management needs across the 
country.
  I commend Chairman Cochran and other members of the Agriculture 
Appropriations subcommittee for their hard work to complete this year's 
bill. So, it is with regret that I had to vote against passage of this 
bill.
  Mr. President, approval of the annual budget is among our most 
serious responsibilities. We are the trustees of billions of taxpayer 
dollars, and we should evaluate every spending decision with great 
deliberation and without prejudice.
  Unfortunately, each year, we find new ways to violate budget policy. 
Appropriators have employed every sidestepping method in the book to 
circumvent Senate rules and common budget principles that are supposed 
to strictly guide the appropriations process. The excessive fodder and 
trickery have never been greater, resulting in the shameless waste of 
millions of taxpayer dollars. Included in this bill is more than $243 
million in pork-barrel spending and additional ``emergency spending'' 
at the cost of $2 billion.
  Traditional earmarks run rampant in this bill and its accompanying 
report for unrequested and low-priority spending. Other sly methods are 
also utilized to secure funding for parochial projects. If a direct 
amount is not earmarked, then the committee has covertly directed the 
USDA to grant special consideration to certain projects that would 
otherwise be subject to a competitive grant review. Appropriations 
bills are also popular targets to attach policy riders which clearly 
have no place in budget bills.
  Another $2 billion in designated ``emergency'' spending was also 
added to this bill for various crop and disaster related assistance. 
This ``emergency'' spending is in addition to billions already spent in 
the past few years for farm relief spending, as well as other 
supplemental appropriations included in the military conference report 
for fiscal year 2000, and several billion more included in the recently 
passed crop insurance reform bill.
  I rise today to tell my colleagues that I object.
  I object to the $243 million in directed earmarks for special 
interest projects in this bill. I object to sidestepping the 
legislative process by attaching erroneous riders to an appropriations 
bill. I object to speeding through appropriations bills without 
adequate review by all members. I object to budget gimmickry practiced 
by attaching non-germane and non-priority items to appropriations bills 
and designating them as ``emergencies'' to avoid exceeding budget 
allocations.
  It is no surprise that many of these earmarks are included for 
political glamour rather than practical purposes. Members can go back 
to their districts to ride in public parades and garner votes at the 
expense of average citizens who are struggling to maintain minimum wage 
jobs.
  Again, some of these items are not particularly objectionable on an 
individual basis. However, I am merely objecting to the way these 
projects have been selectively identified and prioritized for earmarks 
when so many other needs around our country go unaddressed. Other items 
clearly do not belong in this particular bill and, therefore, could be 
subject to budget points-of-order.
  Numerous earmarks are included that are of questionable relation or 
priority to the purposes of this bill. A few examples are:
  $20 million for construction of a Los Angeles replacement laboratory 
and office space project in California;
  $3.5 million for the Delta Teachers Academy;
  $5 million for demonstration housing grants for agriculture, 
aquaculture, and seafood processing works in Mississippi and Alaska;
  $500,000 for cooperative efforts with the Claude E. Phillips 
Herbarium in Delaware;
  $87,000 for North American Studies in Texas;
  $436,000 for a clean air PM-10 study in Washington;
  $2,150,000 for a rural health program in Mississippi to train health 
care workers to serve in rural areas; and,
  An additional $520,000 for seven additional inspectors at the U.S.-
Mexico Border at the San Diego ports of entry.
  Again, Mr. President, these projects may be meritorious and helpful 
to the designated communities, but they do not appear appropriate to 
tag onto this year's agriculture spending bill. This appropriations 
measure is intended to address farmers, women, children and rural 
communities with the greatest need. Yet, by diverting millions to non-
agricultural needs, we fail in this responsibility, forcing Congress to 
pass ad-hoc emergency spending bills with billions in farm relief and 
bail-outs for producers who cannot pay back their federal loans.
  I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending 
priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this 
agriculture bill. Had we more responsibility allocated funding in these 
appropriations bills, we certainly could have avoided this type of 
egregious pork-barrel and emergency ad hoc spending which cuts deep 
into the budget surplus.
  Mr. President, I have compiled a list of objectionable provisions in 
this bill and its accompanying report. However, the list is too lengthy 
to include in the Record, but will be available from my Senate office.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American food supply is one of the 
safest in the world--but it is not safe enough. Over 75 million 
Americans a year are stricken by disease caused by contaminated food 
they eat. Each year, 9,000 people--mostly the very young and the very 
old--die as a result. The costs of medical treatment and losses in 
productivity from these illnesses are as high as $37 billion annually.
  The emergency of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and the 
increase in the number of organisms resistant to antibiotics, are 
compounding these problems and making foodborne illnesses an 
increasingly serious public health challenge.
  Americans deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe, 
regardless of their source. Yet too many citizens today are at 
unnecessary risk of foodborne diseases. This Congress can make a 
difference. The FDA requested a budget increase of $30 million in 2001 
for its Food Safety Initiative activities. With these additional funds, 
the FDA can improve its inspection of high-risk food establishments and 
strengthen its laboratory capabilities. Without this funding, the 
agency will conduct 700 fewer inspections next year. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of protecting our 
food supply by granting the FDA the majority of its requested increase 
for food safety. The amendment I propose will give the FDA the 
additional $6 million it needs for these efforts.
  In response to improved surveillance and increased sampling and 
testing, illnesses from the most common bacterial foodborne pathogens 
decreased by 21 percent from 1997 to 1999. As a result, 855,000 fewer 
Americans each year suffer from foodborne diseases. But contaminated 
food still remains a significant public health problem.
  Recently, a new strain of an organism contaminated oysters in Texas, 
and caused an epidemic of diarrhea. This year, the FDA recalled several 
smoked fish products manufactured in New York because of outbreaks of 
disease. In March, 500 college students in Massachusetts became ill 
with Norwalk-like virus. Each year there are

[[Page 15616]]

also at least 4700 cases of Salmonella in Massachusetts. We must do 
more to protect our citizens from foodborne diseases.
  Imported foods are a significant part of the problem and often pose 
especially serious health risks. Americans are consuming foods from 
other countries at increasing rates. Since 1992, the number of food 
imports has tripled. At that time, the FDA was able to inspect only 8 
percent of these imports. Since then the rate of FDA inspections of 
imported food has dropped to less than 1 percent, because resources did 
not increase for monitoring these imports.
  Other countries have often not implemented food safety protections 
comparable to those in the United States, and general sanitary 
conditions are often poor. As a consequence, foods from such countries 
are more likely to be contaminated with disease-producing organisms. In 
1995, 242 people contracted Salmonella from alfalfa sprouts imported 
from the Netherlands. In 1996, over 1,400 people became ill from 
contaminated raspberries from Guatemala. Just this year, infected 
shrimp from Vietnam caused Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks.
  In earlier decades, diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera were 
the focus of food safety concerns. Today diseases caused by dangerous 
new strains of E. coli have become primary causes of foodborne illness. 
These new organisms necessitate increased investment in research, 
technology, and surveillance to protect the safety of our food supply.
  Food safety efforts are also especially important to protect the 
growing number of individuals in vulnerable populations, such as young 
children, the elderly, those with lowered immunity from HIV, and those 
with inadequate access to health care.
  By providing the FDA with the necessary resources to combat foodborne 
diseases, we can protect tens of millions of our fellow citizens across 
the country each year. Investment in food safety is an investment in 
the health of every American. Congress should give the FDA the 
resources it needs in order to ensure the safety of the food we eat. 
The amendment I am proposing is a major step to meet this challenge, 
and I urge the Senate to approve it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for and 
cosponsorship of the Hatch-Durbin amendment to the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill to increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs 
(OGD) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $2 million.
  As we all know, the high costs of prescription drugs are on the minds 
of Americans because having access to affordable prescription drugs is 
essential for people of all ages. Over the next 5 years, the patents of 
name brand drugs with approximately $22 billion in sales will expire. 
Consumers will save millions of dollars from generic prescription drug 
alternatives. This will help to alleviate cost pressures facing some of 
our most vulnerable citizens--seniors and the chronically ill.
  The FDA will be able to help make drugs more affordable only if it 
has adequate resources to review and approve generic drug applications 
in a timely manner. In recent years, I have worked with Senators 
Specter, Harkin, and other cosponsors of this amendment to urge our 
colleagues to increase funds for the Office of Generic Drugs. These 
efforts have paid off in a reduction in the backlog of generic drug 
applications. Unfortunately, the President did not request an increase 
for the Office of Generic Drugs for the 2001 fiscal year. However, the 
workload for the office continues to increase and for the first time in 
several years, the backlog of applications has increased rather than 
continue to decline.
  An increase of $2 million for the Office of Generic Drugs will be 
used for training and the upgrade of information technology systems 
that will allow for the electronic submission and review of generic 
drug applications.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. This 
amendment will put the review record of the Office of Generic Drugs 
back on course.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2001.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $75.1 billion in new budget 
authority (BA) and $39.4 billion in new outlays to fund most of the 
programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. 
All of the discretionary funding in this bill is nondefense spending.
  When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $64.2 billion in BA 
and $46.7 billion in outlays for FY 2001. Including mandatory savings, 
the subcommittee is at its 302(b) allocation in both BA and outlays.
  The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 302(b) allocation 
totals $64.4 billion in BA and $46.7 billion in outlays. Within this 
amount, $14.9 billion in BA and $15.0 billion in outlays is for 
nondefense discretionary spending.
  For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all 
the mandatory savings in the bill, the Senate-reported bill is $315 
million in BA and $6 million in outlays below the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation. It is $75 million in BA below and $131 million in outlays 
above the 2000 level for discretionary spending, and $630 million in BA 
and $77 million in outlays below the President's request for these 
programs.
  I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its 
302(b) allocation. I appreciate the committee's support for a number of 
ongoing projects and programs important to my home State of New Mexico 
as it has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation.
  I urge adoption of the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 S. 2536, AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS, 2001 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
                [Fiscal year 2001 in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority.....................     14,539     49,616     64,155
  Outlays..............................     14,961     31,775     46,736
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................     14,584     49,616     64,470
  Outlays..............................     14,967     31,775     46,742
2000 level:
  Budget authority.....................     14,614     50,295     64,909
  Outlays..............................     14,830     33,088     47,918
President's request
  Budget authority.....................     15,169     49,616     64,785
  Outlays..............................     15,038     31,775     46,813
 
    SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................       -315  .........       -315
  Outlays..............................         -6  .........         -6
2000 level:
  Budget authority.....................        -75       -679       -754
  Outlays..............................        131     -1,313     -1,182
President's request
  Budget authority.....................       -630  .........       -630
  Outlays..............................        -77  .........       -77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4461, the FY2001 Agriculture appropriations bill. I commend Senator 
Cochran for bringing forward what I believe is a solid bill to fund 
those programs of greatest importance to production agriculture and 
rural America. The task to complete this legislation is never easy, but 
the Senator from Mississippi has again worked to craft a bill that 
serves the states of all members of the Senate.
  In this era of tight budget caps, crafting this legislation becomes 
more difficult each year. Despite these difficulties, the chairman has 
still found a way to provide increases in funding for several vital 
programs, including:
  Farm Service Agency Staffing +$20 million from FY00; Conservation 
Programs +$63.4 million; Food Safety Inspection Service +$29 million; 
and Agricultural Research +60.4 million.
  Mr. President, I know that many Senators and our constituents are 
often upset to see increases in funding for federal staffing. But, I 
must tell you that this increase in funding for FSA staffing is 
essential.
  The Farm Service Agency is responsible for distributing all AMTA, 
LDP, and market loss payments and programs to our producers. With the 
low prices of the past two years, these staff have faced a tremendous 
workload.

[[Page 15617]]

These programs are essential to our producers and without proper 
staffing the delivery of these programs will be delayed. This is 
funding that will benefit our producers.
  The productivity of today's U.S. agricultural machine is a modern day 
miracle that is a model for the rest of the world. We grow more food, 
for more people, on less land each year. Much of this productivity is a 
direct result of the commitment Congress has provided to agricultural 
research in the past. Additional research and productivity will be 
essential, as the world's population continues to grow in the next 
fifty years. The U.S. must be a leader in this area, and I thank the 
chairman for his commitment to research funding in this legislation.
  In addition, I want to thank the chairman for the additional funding 
provided for the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). Kansas is the 
largest beef packing state in the country and beef accounts for nearly 
\1/2\ the farm income in my state each year. We have many small plants 
and lockers located throughout the state, and we have the ``Big 4'' 
packers located within a 100-mile radius of each other in the 
southwestern part of the state. These plants have experienced inspector 
shortages at several points during the past year. These shortages 
result in reduced production chain speeds, which results in lost income 
for the processors, and fewer cattle being slaughtered which directly 
affects the pocketbooks of my cowboys and cattle ranchers, I am hopeful 
FSIS will use this money to hire inspectors and locate them in those 
areas where they are most needed.
  I think it is also important to point out the significantly larger 
amount of funding for USDA agricultural export programs in the Senate 
bill compared to the House Agricultural Appropriations bill. We need 
full funding of these programs if our producers are to continue gaining 
additional world market shares, and I am hopeful the Senate position 
will prevail in conference with the House.
  Finally, I thank the chairman for the funding he has provided for 
continued wheat and grain sorghum research in the State of Kansas 
through the Agricultural Research Service and Kansas State University. 
Kansas is the No. 1 producer of both wheat and grain sorghum in the 
U.S. Thus, the two crops play a vital role in our state's agricultural 
economy. This funding will allow us to continue research that allows us 
to combat emerging diseases in these crops and to find better ways to 
market them as well.
  Again, I thank the Chairman for his efforts on this legislation. As 
always, he and staff--Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, Les 
Spivey, and Hunt Shipman--have taken very difficult budget numbers and 
have gone out of their way to address the needs of the constituents of 
all members of the Senate. They should be applauded for their work, and 
I urge my colleagues to support quick passage of this important piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, during consideration of the 1990 Farm 
Bill, a provision was inserted granting the USDA Graduate School the 
ability to enter non-competitive, interagency agreements for the 
provision of training services to other agencies. The Graduate School 
pursues and enters into these side agreements with other Federal 
agencies on a non-competitive basis. The private sector is shut out, 
unable to bid on these contracts.
  Section 1669 enables the United States Department of Agriculture 
Graduate School (Graduate School) to accept non-competitive agreements 
from federal agencies to provide training and other human resource 
services. The provision limits--and even discourages--competition in 
contracting, the cornerstone of fair and equitable pricing in the award 
of government contracts.
  Despite its name and 80-year history, the Graduate School is not a 
part of the federal government. The Comptroller General of the United 
States ruled that the Graduate School is a ``Non-Appropriated Fund 
Instrumentality'' (NAFI). NAFIs do not receive budget authority or 
appropriations from Congress and are supported entirely by fees or 
prices for their services. Like other NAFIs the Graduate School is not 
subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the Freedom of 
Information Act, or other laws and regulations governing the operations 
of federal agencies. The Comptroller General ruled that the Graduate 
School, as a NAFI, is not a proper recipient of interagency order from 
Government agencies for training services. And under law, these orders 
are only permissible if a commercial enterprise can't provide the goods 
or services as conveniently or cheaply.
  Various federal laws do indeed provide preferential treatment for 
economically disadvantaged firms in the award of government contracts. 
Under these programs administered and monitored by federal agencies, 
such as the Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, and 
Department of Commerce, many small businesses, minority-owned 
enterprises, and firms in labor surplus areas qualify by meeting 
established regulatory standards.
  The Graduate School, however is not economically disadvantaged. The 
Graduate School earned net profits exceeding $13 million over the past 
five years. Effective on the close of its 1998 fiscal year on September 
30, its net worth was $18.5 million; its aggregate retained earnings 
(1993-1998) were $13.3 million, and its current asset/liability ratio 
was 2.01. In spite of this financially advantageous position, the 
Graduate School pays ``bargain rate'' non-profit postage, receives 
donated space and services from federal agencies, and pays no federal 
income tax.
  Only the Graduate School benefits from the preferential treatment 
afforded by Section 1669.
  The Graduate School has government subsidized facilities in 
Washington, D.C., Chicago, Philadelphia, Honolulu, Atlanta, Dallas, and 
San Francisco. It offers a range of business, finance and management 
courses that could be offered by hundreds of local community colleges 
or private training firms.
  The Graduate School benefits at the expense of small and large tax-
paying businesses and is not selling any commodity they could not 
provide. Indeed, many large and small-business training enterprises are 
ready, willing, and able to compete for the Graduate School's share of 
agency training budgets.
  Mr. President, competition requires a level playing field. Without 
it, American taxpayers take the hit. And agencies and taxpayers are not 
receiving the benefits for quality and pricing that competition 
provides. In Section 1669 restrictive, narrowly based, preferential 
legislation undermines proven forces of the market economy to determine 
fair and equitable prices. Section 1669 of the 1990 Agriculture Act (PL 
101-624) must be repealed.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed by a margin of 
74-21 the Jeffords-Dorgan amendment to allow for importation of FDA-
approved prescription medicines by licensed pharmacists and drug 
wholesalers. This amendment addresses a very important issue for 
American consumers, especially for senior citizens who must pay for 
their medicines out of their own pockets. The same medications sold in 
the United States are also sold in Canada and other countries, often at 
substantially lower prices. This amendment has the potential to save 
American consumers millions of dollars by giving them access to their 
medicines at these lower prices at their local pharmacies.
  I am pleased that this amendment has the support of the National 
Community Pharmacists Association, and I ask unanimous consent that a 
letter of support from the NCPA be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                National Community


                                      Pharmacists Association,

                                                    July 17, 2000.
     Re H.R. 4461--Ag Appropriations Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone et 
         al., amendment.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the independent pharmacists in 
     your state, I would like to express the National Community 
     Pharmacists Associations' endorsement of the strongly 
     bipartisan cited amendment that safely allows American 
     consumers to benefit from international price competition for 
     prescription medicines.

[[Page 15618]]

       The Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone amendment is designed to 
     permit the importation of prescription drugs by American 
     pharmacies so long as the drugs meet Food and Drug 
     Administration standards, including compliance with current 
     good manufacturing practices. Such FDA-approved drugs are 
     sold in Canada, the United Kingdom, EU countries, and other 
     countries for prices considerable lower than the best prices 
     available to retailers in this country. We agree with its 
     sponsors that it ``is a fair commonsense, free-market 
     approach to lowering drug prices for constituents while 
     benefiting small businesses'' and that ``it's outrageous that 
     Americans should have to resort to crossing borders to 
     purchase their prescriptions. We should be able to buy our 
     medications at reasonable prices from pharmacies in our 
     neighborhoods.''
       This amendment encourages and supports the role of 
     pharmacists in our health care system and strengthens their 
     ability to continue to provide affordable, critical products 
     and services. It also will likely encourage more employers to 
     continue and even initiate prescription drug coverage for 
     their employees.
       The objectives of this amendment are fully compatible with 
     the 1988, Prescription Drug Marketing Act [PL 100-293] 
     authored by your former colleague Spark Matsunaga and the 
     dean of the House of Representatives, Representative John 
     Dingell. This law in an effort to prevent the importation of 
     counterfeit or adulterated prescription drugs banned 
     reimportation of all prescription drugs, except by 
     manufacturers. The proposed amendment would authorize 
     importation including reimportation by legitimate 
     pharmacists, pharmacists buying groups and wholesalers. Under 
     the amendment, pharmacies and wholesalers importing drugs 
     would still have to meet the same standards set by FDA, which 
     allowed $12.8 billion worth of Rx drugs to be imported into 
     the U.S. by manufacturers in 1997.
       Obviously, imports by legitimate businesses including the 
     independent pharmacies will not increase counterfeit drugs 
     and will not put the health of American consumers at risk. To 
     claim otherwise would at best be deceptive.
       According to the United States International Trade 
     Commission staff, more than 16% of the prescription drugs 
     consumed by American patients were in fact imported. Typical, 
     would be a nasal inhaler for asthma patients whose labeling 
     reads ``Assembled in Great Britain from products manufactured 
     in Great Britain, Sweden, and Finland and manufactured for 
     Astra USA, Inc. Westborough, MA.''
       Further, the amendment provides for a paper trail to assure 
     that the drugs are properly transported and stored; and to 
     prevent the importation of counterfeit, adulterated or other 
     inappropriate prescription drugs. It also allows for testing 
     of imported drugs when appropriate.
       It is noteworthy that both the FDA and the PMA (now PhRMA) 
     testified against and otherwise opposed the 1988 
     reimportation provision. Now the drug maker organization has 
     done a 180, claiming that limiting reimports to them protects 
     the public and disingenuously claiming that community retail 
     pharmacy is not a competitive marketplace and that, 
     consequently, any lower acquisition cost available to 
     community pharmacies would benefit consumers only if 
     pharmacies were forced through price controls to pass on 
     savings to patients.
       The truth is that the community pharmacy marketplace has 
     virtually all of the characteristics of a healthy competitive 
     marketplace. It has a significant number of widely dispersed, 
     diversely owned businesses that are readily available to 
     consumers. These competitive businesses predictably have 
     modest gross margins or markups and low profits. What these 
     businesses do not have is access to fairly priced branded Rxs 
     based on economies of scale. Drugmakers, through 
     discriminatory pricing practices, are responsible for this 
     unhealthy characteristic of the community pharmacy 
     marketplace.
       In addition to the strong and growing number of bipartisan 
     cosponsors, Congress has already taken key steps in support 
     of the Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone approach. On April 6, 2000, 
     the Senate approved the Gorton/Jeffords Sense of the Senate 
     resolution that the ``cost disparity between identical 
     prescription drugs sold in the United States, Canada and 
     Mexico should be reduced or eliminated.'' On Monday, July 10, 
     2000, two relevant and significant amendments were approved 
     by the House of Representatives on the Agriculture 
     Appropriation bill, H.R. 4461. The first amendment was 
     approved 363 to 12. It forbids the FDA from enforcing the ban 
     on reimportation. The second amendment was approved 370 to 
     12. It prevents any FDA action regarding prescription drugs 
     manufactured in FDA approved facilities in the US, Canada and 
     Mexico. Notably, the House Commerce Committee Chairman and 
     its five subcommittee chairs voted for both of these 
     amendments.
       A recent survey by the Senior Citizens League found that 
     88% of seniors favor the Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone amendment 
     to allow safe prescription drugs to be imported from Canada 
     and other countries.
       The small businesses, independent health care professionals 
     we represent are the preferred choice of American consumers. 
     Our members function in the market in a variety of forms. 
     They do business as single stores ranging from apothecaries 
     to full line high volume pharmacies; as independent chains 
     (e.g. 100 pharmacies) and as franchises (e.g. Medicine 
     Shoppe, 1200 pharmacies). Whatever the form of business 
     entity, however, independent pharmacists are the decision 
     makers for this wide variety of NCPA member companies.
       The most in depth consumer survey to date conducted by 
     Consumer Reports, involving 15,000 consumers, published last 
     fall, found that consumers preferred independently owned 
     pharmacies for several reasons: Independents provided more 
     personal attention; Independents provided more useful 
     information about both prescription and nonprescription 
     drugs; Independent druggists were seen as more professional, 
     more sensitive to families' needs, and easier to talk to; 
     Independents kept consumers waiting less time for drugs, had 
     prescriptions ready for pickup more often, and provided out-
     of-stock medicine faster
       Our 1200 plus independently owned members in the Medicine 
     Shoppes franchise were ranked second; the supermarket 
     drugstores were third, the mass merchandisers were fourth; 
     and the worst stores overall were the big corporate run 
     chains. No preference was expressed for mail order.
       The community pharmacist of today is simultaneously a 
     health care professional and a small businessperson. As 
     owners, managers, and employees of independent pharmacies, 
     our member's 30,000 pharmacies and our 75,000 are committed 
     to provide legislative and regulatory initiatives, which are 
     designed to protect the public; to provide them a level 
     playing field and a fair chance to compete; and to provide 
     quality pharmacists services to your constituents. The 
     Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone et. al. amendments with its safe, 
     but free trade approach, meets each of these criteria.
       We urge you to vote for the Jeffords/Dorgan/Wellstone 
     amendment to H.R. 4461. It will unleash market forces to help 
     reduce the cost of safe prescription drugs for all of your 
     constituents, including seniors.
           Warm Regards,

                                               John M. Rector,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                           Government Affairs and General Counsel.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Cochran, my chairman, 
and his fine staff for the efficient completion of S. 2536. My friend 
from Mississippi has conducted this debate--as he always does--in a 
balanced, fair, and non partisan manner. He is a gentleman and a 
friend, and it is an honor and a pleasure to work with him.
  The bill we just passed includes funding for a wide variety of 
programs important to the American people. This is especially true now 
due to economic conditions in rural America which have not kept pace 
with the general prosperity enjoyed by most Americans.
  The bill also responds quickly and adequately to the very real crisis 
that has hit the dairy industry across this nation. Last December, milk 
prices dropped unexpectedly and dramatically. Today, the base price 
farmers receive for their milk is $9.46. The average base price for 
1998 was $14.21, and the average for 1999 was $12.43.
  Those cold numbers cannot express the hard damage that has been done 
to dairy farmers and their families throughout my State, and throughout 
the nation. They add up to families that have stopped milking after 
generations, and rural towns that are collapsing as farms disappear. 
America's dairyland is in real danger of becoming a wasteland.
  And today with this bill, the Senate has responded with emergency 
payments to the small farmers hardest hit by this disaster. I am proud 
of this institution for putting aside regional differences and 
interests, and for seeing this provision as--not just helping Wisconsin 
farmers, or Vermont farmers, or Pennsylvanian farmers--but as helping 
American families.
  I also thank the Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, for his vital 
assistance in securing these emergency dairy payments. At the end of 
last year, when we spent a great deal of the Senate's time on dairy 
issues, he listened to me and to the unique struggles of Wisconsin 
dairy farmers. He said then he would do whatever he could to help. And 
he has. He is a man who speaks some of the most inspiring and powerful 
words spoken on the Senate floor--and he is a man of those words. It is 
an honor to serve with him.

[[Page 15619]]

  This is a good bill and, again, we should all congratulate Senator 
Cochran for his fine leadership of our subcommittee. I also want to 
thank the members of my staff who have helped make this process run as 
smoothly as it has this year: Paul Bock, my chief of staff, and Ben 
Miller, who is new on my staff this year, have done a fine job. Special 
thanks goes to the subcommittee's minority clerk, Galen Fountain, 
without whom I do not believe there could be an Agriculture bill in the 
Senate. His knowledge of the subject, his patience, his loyalty, and 
his work ethic are legendary around here, and deservedly so.
  I look forward to moving this bill through conference quickly, and 
having a solid Agriculture budget in place well before October 1st.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are no more amendments. I 
appreciate very much the cooperation of all Senators. We are ready to 
go to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the 
question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of 
the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Did we just pass the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not yet announced the final 
passage of the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

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

                                NAYS--13

     Allard
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Torricelli
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Bunning
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Murray
  The bill (H.R. 4461), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate insists on its amendments and 
requests a conference with the House, and the Chair appoints Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, 
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
Durbin, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to express my deepest appreciation 
for the excellent cooperation of our professional staff members of the 
Appropriations Committee. Our subcommittee staff, in particular, led by 
our chief clerk, Rebecca Davies, and other staff members, including 
Martha Scott Poindexter; Hunt Shipman; Les Spivey; and Coy Neal; the 
minority professional staff, Galen Fountain and Carole Geagley; the 
full committee staff member, Jay Kimmitt; Senator Kohl's personal staff 
members, Ben Miller and Paul Bock. They were all enormously helpful in 
the handling of this legislation and the passage of this legislation 
tonight in the Senate. For all of their assistance, I am deeply 
grateful.
  I also have to thank Senator Herb Kohl, the distinguished ranking 
member of the Democratic side of the aisle on this subcommittee.
  I appreciate the able assistance we received during the final, 
crucial stages of the handling of this bill from Senator Lott, the 
majority leader; Senator Stevens, chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations; and Senator Reid of Nevada, who provided assistance all 
during the handling of the bill on the floor of the Senate today. We 
appreciate all of the good work they did. We also thank all Senators 
for permitting us to pass this legislation tonight.

                          ____________________