[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 44 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Pages 2669-2671]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Statement on Signing the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001

 October 28, 2000

     Today I am signing into law H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for FY 2001. I commend the Congress for presenting me 
an acceptable version of this bill that provides critical funding for 
our Nation's farmers and ranchers, improves the safety of our food 
supply, and provides assistance to low-income families and rural 
communities.
     I am pleased that the Act fully funds my Food Safety Initiative at 
$383 million, a $57 million, or 17 percent, increase over FY 2000. These 
funds will improve food safety for all Americans by allowing the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) to increase surveillance activities and inspections of domestic 
and imported food, accelerate responses to outbreaks, and perform vital 
research on ways to reduce pathogens in food so that we can advance a 
more science-based food inspection system. I also commend the Congress 
for dropping the objectionable language provision that would have 
prevented USDA from fully implementing the Egg Safety Action Plan that I 
announced in December 1999. This will now allow USDA and FDA to 
vigorously pursue the goal of cutting in half the number of salmonella 
illnesses from eggs.
     While the Congress did not provide the full amount of my requested 
increase for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children, thereby failing to ensure that this vital program 
can achieve the goal of 7.5 million participants, the program will be 
able to serve a monthly average of just over 7.3 million individuals. I 
am pleased that the Act adopts my proposal to expand the vehicle 
allowance for the Food Stamp program, which will assist the many working 
poor families for whom owning a vehicle is the one item that makes them 
ineligible for food stamps. In addition, the Act will provide a much-
needed increase in nutrition assistance for low-income families with 
high housing costs, by increasing the Food Stamp program housing 
allowance. The two changes mean that families do not have to choose 
among buying food, paying their housing costs, or having a more reliable 
car. However, I am disappointed the bill did not restore food stamp 
eligibility for certain legal immigrants, as proposed in my Budget.
     Loans and grants for priority rural development programs will 
increase under the Act to $9.9 billion this year, a $2.7 billion 
increase over FY 2000. These funds will help diversify the rural 
economy, improve the quality of life in rural communities, and bring 
more rural areas across the ``economic divide'' that separates too many 
parts of the country from the historic economic expansion underway. I am 
especially pleased that the Act includes several of my proposals to 
address geographic areas of rural America that have long struggled with 
persistent poverty, including $34 million targeted to Indian 
reservations for health clinics, child care centers, water systems, and 
job opportunities; and $10 million for the Mississippi Delta Region to 
create better job opportunities and strengthen local financial 
intermediaries. The Act will also provide over $100 million in loans and 
grants to help close the ``digital divide'' by financing local Internet 
service and broadband transmission in rural areas.
     The Act increases USDA's conservation technical assistance to 
farmers and ranchers by over $50 million from the FY 2000 level. Part of 
these funds will be used for a one-third increase in technical 
assistance to producers who are improving their animal waste management 
systems, as part of my Clean Water Action Plan. I am disappointed, 
however, that the Act cuts financial assistance for these and other 
conservation projects through the Environmental Quality Incentives 
program, and provides none of the funds I requested for the Farmland 
Protection Program that preserves farmland and helps communities manage 
urban sprawl. Also, while it is certainly helpful that the Act increases 
the Wetlands Reserve Program by 100,000 acres, it is far short of 
reaching the 250,000 acres per year I proposed for this program. I am 
hopeful that the next Congress and the next Farm Bill will recognize

[[Page 2670]]

that farmers were the first environmentalists and that Federal farm 
programs should be structured and funded to improve the environment 
while boosting farm income.
     I am also pleased that the Act provides vital payments to farmers 
and ranchers who have suffered losses from natural disasters. However, 
the more than $4 billion in emergency funds in this Act, combined with 
more than $7 billion in farm assistance for the current crop year that 
was enacted this summer, represents the third year in a row the Congress 
has had to supplement farm income through major emergency 
appropriations, due to the failure of the 1996 Farm Bill. I am hopeful 
that the reforms enacted this year to the crop insurance program will 
mitigate the need for future ad hoc crop loss legislation. I continue to 
believe that USDA's farm income assistance program must be overhauled to 
target funds to family farmers based on their actual income losses on 
crops they are growing now, not paid out inordinately to corporate farms 
based on what they grew years ago. My Administration is reviewing the 
emergency funding provisions in this Act, and these funds will be 
released as needs dictate.
     I am concerned that the bill contains an ineffective provision 
regarding importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs that represents 
little more than a false promise to the American public. While I am 
supportive of efforts to allow American consumers to gain access to 
lower-cost prescription drugs, the language included in the Act contains 
several loopholes that effectively render the provision meaningless. 
Among other serious flaws, drug manufacturers can deny importers access 
to FDA-approved labeling that is required for reimportation, and 
therefore, drug companies are likely to block reimportation of their 
medications. In addition, because this reimport authority expires after 
5 years, private and public sector interest in investing in this system 
will be limited. Not only does this provision fail to provide discounts, 
it also does not address the larger issue of the lack of prescription 
drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.
     I am also concerned that language in this Act restricts 
Presidential ability to initiate certain new agricultural and medical 
trade sanctions and maintain old ones, as congressional approval of such 
sanctions will now be required. This could disrupt the ability of the 
President to conduct foreign policy, and could provide potential targets 
of U.S. actions with time to take countermeasures. The bill permits 
exports of U.S. farm and medical products to Cuba, but constrains these 
trade opportunities by barring the U.S. Government, and severely 
limiting U.S. private banks, from providing financing assistance to 
Cuba. In addition, the legislation purports to restrict the President's 
ability to authorize certain travel-related activities in Cuba. We are 
concerned that this provision could be read to impose overly rigid 
constraints on our ability to conduct foreign policy and respond to 
immediate humanitarian and operational concerns including,  inter alia,  
protecting American lives, ensuring upkeep of American diplomatic 
installations, and assisting in both Federal and State prosecutions in 
the United States in which travel to Cuba may be required. We do not 
think that the Congress intended to curtail such activities by this 
legislation. Accordingly, my Administration will interpret this 
provision, to the extent possible, as not infringing upon such 
activities.
     Also, I note that this bill will provide select U.S. industries 
with a subsidy above and beyond the protection level needed to 
counteract foreign subsidies, while providing no comparable subsidy to 
other U.S. industries or to U.S. consumers, who are forced to pay higher 
prices on industrial inputs or consumer goods as a result of the anti-
dumping and countervailing duties. I call on the Congress to override 
this provision, or amend it to be acceptable, before they adjourn.
     I am also concerned that this bill prohibits the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment 
from supervising, managing, or directing the Forest Service and the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Policy disputes between the 
Congress and the Administration should not degenerate into personal 
attacks. Under Secretary Jim Lyons and his office are essential to 
numerous national environmental, forestry, and conservation initiatives, 
and have provided strong leadership in this regard throughout my 
Administration.

[[Page 2671]]

     There are a number of provisions in the Act that may raise 
Constitutional issues. These provisions will be implemented in a manner 
that is consistent with the Constitution:
 <bullet>    Section 719 of the Act specifies that funds may not be used 
            to provide to any non-Department of Agriculture employee 
            questions or responses to questions resulting from the 
            appropriations hearing process. To the extent that this 
            provision would interfere with my duty to ``take Care that 
            the Laws be faithfully executed,'' or impede my ability to 
            act as the chief executive, it would violate the 
            Constitution, and I will treat it as advisory.
 <bullet>    Section 730 of the Act purports to constrain my ability to 
            make a particular type of budget recommendation to the 
            Congress. This provision would interfere with my 
            constitutional duty under the Recommendation Clause, and I 
            will treat it as advisory.
 <bullet>    Finally, there are provisions in the Act that purport to 
            condition my authority or that of certain officers to use 
            funds appropriated by the Act on the approval of 
            congressional committees. My Administration will interpret 
            such provisions to require notification only, since any 
            other interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court 
            ruling in INS v. Chadha.
    I urge the Congress to approve the remaining FY 2001 spending bills 
expeditiously, and send them to me in an acceptable form.
                                            William J. Clinton
 The White House,
 October 28, 2000.

  Note:  H.R. 4461, approved October 28, was assigned Public Law No. 
106-387.