[Pages S8426-S8451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the agriculture appropriations bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3603) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1997, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported
from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments; as follows:
(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in
italic).

H.R. 3603

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1997, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109, $2,836,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000
of this amount, along with any unobligated balances of
representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural Service
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses, not otherwise provided for, as determined by the
Secretary[: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be
used to detail an individual from an agency funded in this
Act to any Under Secretary office or Assistant Secretary
office for more than 30 days]: Provided further, That none of
the funds made available by this Act may be used to enforce
section 793(d) of Public Law 104-127.

Executive Operations

chief economist

For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including
economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
and the functions of the World Agricultural Outlook Board, as
authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7
U.S.C. 1622g), and including employment pursuant to the
second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944
(7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $4,231,000.

national appeals division

For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
including employment pursuant to the second sentence of
section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of
which not to exceed $25,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109, $11,718,000.

office of budget and program analysis

For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment
under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,986,000.

Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, including employment pursuant to the second sentence
of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
of which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109, $4,283,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial
Officer shall actively market cross-servicing activities of
the National Finance Center.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration to carry out the
programs funded in this Act, $613,000.

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 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 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, and
repair of Agriculture buildings, $120,548,000: Provided, That
in the event an agency within the Department should require
modification of space needs, the Secretary of Agriculture may
transfer a share of that agency's appropriation made
available by this Act to this appropriation, or may transfer
a share of this appropriation to that agency's appropriation,
but such transfers shall not exceed 5 percent of the funds
made available for space rental and related costs to or from
this account. In addition, for construction, repair,
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed
equipment or facilities as necessary to carry out the
programs of the Department, where not otherwise provided,
[$5,000,000], $25,587,000 to remain available until expended;
making a total appropriation of [$125,548,000] $146,135,000.

Hazardous Waste Management

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to
comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section
6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961, $15,700,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That appropriations and funds
available herein to the Department for Hazardous Waste
Management may be transferred to any agency of the Department
for its use in meeting all requirements pursuant to the above
Acts on Federal and non-Federal lands.

Departmental Administration

(including transfers of funds)

For Departmental Administration, [$28,304,000] $30,529,000,
to provide for necessary expenses for management support
services to offices of the Department and for general
administration and disaster management of the Department,
repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and
expenses not otherwise provided for and necessary for the
practical and efficient work of the Department, including
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to
exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109:
Provided, That this appropriation shall be reimbursed from
applicable appropriations in this Act for travel expenses
incident to the holding of hearings as required by 5 U.S.C.
551-558: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, not less than $11,774,000 shall be made
available for civil rights enforcement.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out
the programs funded in this Act, including programs involving
intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive
branch, [$3,728,000] $3,668,000: Provided, That no other
funds appropriated to the Department in this Act shall be
available to the Department for support of activities of
congressional relations: Provided further, That not less than
$2,241,000 shall be transferred to agencies funded in this
Act to maintain personnel at the agency level.

Office of Communications

For necessary expenses to carry on services relating to the
coordination of programs involving public affairs, for the
dissemination of agricultural information, and the
coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by
Congress in the Department, $8,138,000, including employment
pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed
$10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers'
bulletins.

Office of the Inspector General

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence
of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
and the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended,
$63,028,000, including such sums as may be necessary for
contracting and other arrangements with public agencies and
private persons pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, including a sum not to
exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; and
including a sum not to exceed $95,000 for certain
confidential operational expenses including the payment of
informants, to be expended under the direction of the
Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-452 and section
1337 of Public Law 97-98: Provided, That funds transferred to
the Office of the Inspector General through forfeiture
proceedings or from the Department of Justice Assets
Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture
Fund, as a participating agency, as an equitable share from
the forfeiture of property in investigations in which the
Office of the Inspector General participates, or

[[Page S8427]]

through the granting of a Petition for Remission or
Mitigation, shall be deposited to the credit of this account
for law enforcement activities authorized under the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, to remain available until
expended.

Office of the General Counsel

For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $27,749,000.

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic
Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
$540,000.

Economic Research Service

For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in
conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627)
and other laws, [$54,176,000] $53,109,000: Provided, That
this appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant
to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act
of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225).

National Agricultural Statistics Service

For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and
service work, including crop and livestock estimates,
statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys,
and the Census of Agriculture notwithstanding 13 U.S.C.
142(a-b), as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, [$100,221,000]
$98,121,000, of which up to $17,500,000 shall be available
until expended for the Census of Agriculture: Provided, That
this appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant
to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act
of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $40,000 shall be
available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

Agricultural Research Service

For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research
Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration
relating to production, utilization, marketing, and
distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or
nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition,
preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information;
and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or
purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, [$702,831,000]
$721,758,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall
be available for temporary employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $115,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for the operation
and maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed
one for replacement only: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7
U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, alteration, and repair of
buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the
cost of constructing any one building shall not exceed
$250,000, except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall
each be limited to $1,000,000, and except for ten buildings
to be constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed
$500,000 each, and the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building or $250,000,
whichever is greater: Provided further, That the limitations
on alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to
modernization or replacement of existing facilities at
Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That the foregoing
limitations shall not apply to replacement of buildings
needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C.
113a): Provided further, That funds may be received from any
State, other political subdivision, organization, or
individual for the purpose of establishing or operating any
research facility or research project of the Agricultural
Research Service, as authorized by law.
None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

buildings and facilities

For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement,
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural
research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not
otherwise provided, [$59,600,000] $59,200,000, to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That
funds may be received from any State, other political
subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of
establishing any research facility of the Agricultural
Research Service, as authorized by law.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

research and education activities

For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for
cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and
for other expenses, including [$163,671,000] $168,734,000 to
carry into effect the provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C.
361a-361i); [$19,882,000] $20,497,000 for grants for
cooperative forestry research (16 U.S.C. 582a-582-a7);
[$26,902,000] $27,735,000 for payments to the 1890 land-grant
colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 3222);
[$44,235,000] $46,068,000 for special grants for agricultural
research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); $11,769,000 for special grants
for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C.
450i(c)); [$96,735,000] $93,935,000 for competitive research
grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)); [$4,775,000] $5,051,000 for the
support of animal health and disease programs (7 U.S.C.
3195); [$650,000] $500,000 for supplemental and alternative
crops and products (7 U.S.C. 3319d); [$500,000] $700,000 for
grants for research pursuant to the Critical Agricultural
Materials Act of 1984 (7 U.S.C. 178) and section 1472 of the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3318),
to remain available until expended; $475,000 for rangeland
research grants (7 U.S.C. 3331-3336); $3,000,000 for higher
education graduate fellowships grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)),
to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b);
$4,000,000 for higher education challenge grants (7 U.S.C.
3152(b)(1)); $1,000,000 for a higher education minority
scholars program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)), to remain available
until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); [$2,000,000] $1,500,000 for
an education grants program for Hispanic-serving Institutions
(7 U.S.C. 3241); $4,000,000 for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C.
3322); [$8,000,000] $8,100,000 for sustainable agriculture
research and education (7 U.S.C. 5811); $9,200,000 for a
program of capacity building grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to
colleges eligible to receive funds under the Act of August
30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), including Tuskegee
University [7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4),] to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $1,450,000 for payments to the
1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public Law
103-382; and [$9,605,000] $10,644,000 for necessary expenses
of Research and Education Activities, of which not to exceed
$100,000 shall be for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; in all,
[$411,849,000] $418,358,000.
None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

For establishment of a Native American institutions
endowment fund, as authorized by Public Law 130-382 (7 U.S.C.
301 note), $4,600,000.

buildings and facilities

For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement,
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities and for grants to States and other eligible
recipients for such purposes, as necessary to carry out the
agricultural research, extension, and teaching programs of
the Department of Agriculture, where not otherwise provided,
[$30,449,000] $55,668,000 (7 U.S.C. 390 et seq.), to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

Extension Activities

Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and
American Samoa: For payments for cooperative extension work
under the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, to be distributed
under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and under section
208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for retirement and employees'
compensation costs for extension agents and for costs of
penalty mail for cooperative extension agents and State
extension directors, [$260,438,000] $268,493,000; $2,500,000
for extension work at the 1994 Institutions under the Smith-
Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)); payments for the nutrition
and family education program for low-income areas under
section 3(d) of the Act, [$58,695,000] $60,510,000; payments
for the pest management program under section 3(d) of the
Act, $10,783,000; payments for the farm safety program under
section 3(d) of the Act, [$2,855,000] $2,943,000; payments
for the pesticide impact assessment program under section
3(d) of the Act, [$3,214,000] $3,313,000; payments to upgrade
1890 land-grant college research, extension, and teaching
facilities as authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-
113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3222b), [$7,549,000] $7,782,000, to
remain available until expended; $1,700,000 for institutional
capacity building grants at the 1994 Institutions (7 U.S.C.
301 note), to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C.
2209b); payments for the rural development centers under
section 3(d) of the Act, [$908,000] $936,000; payments for a
groundwater quality program under section 3(d) of the Act,
[$10,733,000] $11,065,000; payments for the agricultural
telecommunications program, as authorized by Public Law 101-
624 (7 U.S.C. 5926), [$1,167,000] $1,203,000; payments for
youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the Act,
[$9,554,000] $9,850,000; payments for a food safety program
under section 3(d) of the Act, [$2,365,000] $2,438,000;
payments for carrying out the provisions of the Renewable
Resources Extension Act of 1978, [$3,192,000] $3,291,000;
payments for Indian reservation agents under section 3(d) of
the Act, [$1,672,000] $1,724,000; payments for sustainable
agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the Act,
[$3,309,000] $3,411,000; payments for rural health and safety
education as authorized by section 2390 of Public Law 101-624
(7 U.S.C. 2661 note, 2662), [$2,628,000] $2,709,000; payments
for cooperative extension work by the colleges receiving the
benefits of the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326, 328)
and Tuskegee University,

[[Page S8428]]

[$24,337,000] $25,090,000; and for Federal administration and
coordination including administration of the Smith-Lever Act,
as amended, and the Act of September 29, 1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-
349), as amended, and section 1361(c) of the Act of October
3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), and to coordinate and provide
program leadership for the extension work of the Department
and the several States and insular possessions, [$6,271,000]
$11,331,000; in all, [$409,670,000] $431,072,000: Provided,
That funds hereby appropriated pursuant to section 3(c) of
the Act of June 26, 1953, and section 506 of the Act of June
23, 1972, as amended, shall not be paid to any State, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin
Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa
prior to availability of an equal sum from non-Federal
sources for expenditure during the current fiscal year.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to
administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration, $618,000.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

salaries and expenses

(including transfers of funds)

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those
pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended (21
U.S.C. 114b-c), necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate
pests and plant and animal diseases; to carry out inspection,
quarantine, and regulatory activities; to discharge the
authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of
March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to
protect the environment, as authorized by law, [$435,428,000]
$432,103,000, of which [$4,500,000] $5,000,000 shall be
available for the control of outbreaks of insects, plant
diseases, animal diseases and for control of pest animals and
birds to the extent necessary to meet emergency conditions:
Provided, That no funds shall be used to formulate or
administer a brucellosis eradication program for the current
fiscal year that does not require minimum matching by the
States of at least 40 percent: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for field employment
pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and
the purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for
replacement only: Provided further, That, in addition, in
emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural
production industry of this country, the Secretary may
transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the
agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as he
may deem necessary, to be available only in such emergencies
for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious
disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for
expenses in accordance with the Act of February 28, 1947, as
amended, and section 102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, as
amended, and any unexpended balances of funds transferred for
such emergency purposes in the next preceding fiscal year
shall be merged with such transferred amounts: Provided
further, That appropriations hereunder shall be available
pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration
of leased buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise
provided the cost of altering any one building during the
fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the current
replacement value of the building.
In fiscal year 1997 the agency is authorized to collect
fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other
political subdivisions, domestic and international
organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided
that such fees are structured such that any entity's
liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical
assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the
agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to
remain available until expended, without further
appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or
services.
Of the total amount available under this heading in fiscal
year 1997, $98,000,000 shall be derived from user fees
deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee
Account.

buildings and facilities

For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $3,200,000, to remain available until expended.

Agricultural Marketing Service

marketing services

For necessary expenses to carry on services related to
consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution,
transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by
law, and for administration and coordination of payments to
States; including field employment pursuant to section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$90,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, [$37,592,000]
$47,829,000, including funds for the wholesale market
development program for the design and development of
wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major
metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization
activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31
U.S.C. 9701).

limitation on administrative expenses

Not to exceed $59,012,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Appropriations Committees.

funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)

(including transfers of funds)

Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program
expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating
expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of
Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August
8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and
(3) not more than $10,576,000 for formulation and
administration of marketing agreements and orders pursuant to
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended,
and the Agricultural Act of 1961.

payments to states and possessions

For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and
departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing
activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,200,000.

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
United States Grain Standards Act, as amended, for the
administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, for
certifying procedures used to protect purchasers of farm
products, and the standardization activities related to grain
under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended,
including field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the
Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $22,728,000:
Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant
to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of
buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one
building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent
of the current replacement value of the building.

inspection and weighing services

limitation on inspection and weighing service expenses

Not to exceed $43,207,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and
weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities
require additional supervision and oversight, or other
uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded
by up to 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations
Committees.

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws
enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, $446,000.

Food Safety and Inspection Service

For necessary expenses to carry on services authorized by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, the Poultry
Products Inspection Act, as amended, and the Egg Products
Inspection Act, as amended, [$574,000,000] $557,697,000, and
in addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from
fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as
authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 102-237: Provided,
That this appropriation shall not be available for shell egg
surveillance under section 5(d) of the Egg Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(d)): Provided further, That
this appropriation shall be available for field employment
pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $75,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That
this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7
U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to
administer the laws enacted by Congress for the
[Consolidated] Farm Service Agency, Foreign Agricultural
Service, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $572,000.

Farm Service Agency

salaries and expenses

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of

[[Page S8429]]

programs administered by the Farm Service Agency,
[$746,440,000] $795,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary is
authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities
(but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make program payments for all programs administered by the
Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to
the Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and
merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

state mediation grants

For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106),
$2,000,000.

dairy indemnity program

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers for milk or cows producing such
milk and manufacturers of dairy products who have been
directed to remove their milk or dairy products from
commercial markets because it contained residues of chemicals
registered and approved for use by the Federal Government,
and in making indemnity payments for milk, or cows producing
such milk, at a fair market value to any dairy farmer who is
directed to remove his milk from commercial markets because
of (1) the presence of products of nuclear radiation or
fallout if such contamination is not due to the fault of the
farmer, or (2) residues of chemicals or toxic substances not
included under the first sentence of the Act of August 13,
1968, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450j), if such chemicals or toxic
substances were not used in a manner contrary to applicable
regulations or labeling instructions provided at the time of
use and the contamination is not due to the fault of the
farmer, $100,000, to remain available until expended (7
U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That none of the funds contained in
this Act shall be used to make indemnity payments to any
farmer whose milk was removed from commercial markets as a
result of his willful failure to follow procedures prescribed
by the Federal Government: Provided further, That this amount
shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit Corporation:
Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to utilize
the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity
Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity
disbursements.

outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 2279), $1,000,000, to remain available until expended.

agricultural credit insurance fund program account

(including transfers of funds)

For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to
be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $600,000,000, of
which $550,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating
loans, $2,345,071,000, of which $1,700,000,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $200,000,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition
loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $1,000,000; for
emergency insured loans, [$25,000,000] $75,000,000 to meet
the needs resulting from natural disasters; for boll weevil
eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989,
$15,384,000; and for credit sales of acquired property,
$25,000,000.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $27,975,000, of which $22,055,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans; operating loans, $96,840,000, of which
$19,210,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and
$18,480,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian
tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488,
$54,000; for emergency insured loans, [$6,365,000]
$19,095,000 to meet the needs resulting from natural
disasters; for boll weevil eradication program loans as
authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, $2,000,000; and for credit sales
of acquired property, $2,530,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $221,046,000, of
which $208,446,000 shall be transferred to and merged with
the ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses'' account.

[Office of Risk Management

[For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized
by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(7 U.S.C. 6933), $62,198,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$700 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).]

CORPORATIONS

The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds
and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the
programs set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year
for such corporation or agency, except as hereinafter
provided.

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act, as amended, such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C.
2209b).

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

reimbursement for net realized losses

For fiscal year 1997, such sums as may be necessary to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized
losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to
be $1,500,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 1997 Budget
Request (H. Doc. 104-162)), but not to exceed $1,500,000,000,
pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961, as
amended (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).

operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

For fiscal year 1997, the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for expenses to comply
with the requirement of section 107(g) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961:
Provided, That expenses shall be for operations and
maintenance costs only and that other hazardous waste
management costs shall be paid for by the USDA Hazardous
Waste Management appropriation in this Act.

TITLE II

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
$693,000.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

conservation operations

For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-590f) including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials program
by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to
exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C.
428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of
permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and
maintenance of aircraft, [$619,392,000] $638,954,000, to
remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which
not less than $5,835,000 is for snow survey and water
forecasting and not less than $8,825,000 is for operation and
establishment of the plant materials centers: Provided, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7
U.S.C. 2250 for construction and improvement of buildings and
public improvements at plant materials centers, except that
the cost of alterations and improvements to other buildings
and other public improvements shall not exceed $250,000:
Provided further, That when buildings or other structures are
erected on non-Federal land, that the right to use such land
is obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further,
That this appropriation shall be available for technical
assistance and related expenses to carry out programs
authorized by section 202(c) of title II of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, as amended (43
U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation may be expended for soil and water conservation
operations under the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-
590f) in demonstration projects: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to
the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of
1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225) and not to exceed $25,000 shall be
available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided
further, That qualified local engineers may be temporarily
employed at per diem rates to perform the technical planning
work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2): Provided further,
That of the total amount appropriated, no more than $250,000
may be available for purposes authorized under sections 351-
360 of Public Law 104-127.

watershed surveys and planning

For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation,
and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and
for small watershed investigations and planning, in
accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-
1009), [$10,762,000] $14,000,000: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to
the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of
1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $110,000 shall be

[[Page S8430]]

available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

watershed and flood prevention operations

For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of
April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the
provisions of laws relating to the activities of the
Department, $101,036,000, to remain available until expended
(7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which up to $15,000,000 may be available
for the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act
approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701, 16 U.S.C. 1006a), as
amended and supplemented: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $200,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That
not to exceed $1,000,000 of this appropriation is available
to carry out the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (Public Law 93-205), as amended, including cooperative
efforts as contemplated by that Act to relocate endangered or
threatened species to other suitable habitats as may be
necessary to expedite project construction.

resource conservation and development

For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of
title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the Act of April 27, 1935
(16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981
(16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $29,377,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

forestry incentives program

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out the program of forestry incentives, as authorized
in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2101), including technical assistance and related expenses,
$6,325,000, to remain available until expended, as authorized
by that Act.

TITLE III

RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs
under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural
Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, $588,000.

Rural Housing Service

rural housing insurance fund program account

(including transfers of funds)

For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, as amended, to be available from funds in the
rural housing insurance fund, as follows: $3,300,000,000 for
loans to section 502 borrowers, as determined by the
Secretary, of which $2,300,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized
guaranteed loans; $35,000,000 for section 504 housing repair
loans; $15,000,000 for section 514 farm labor housing;
$58,654,000 for section 515 rental housing; $600,000 for
section 524 site loans; $50,000,000 for credit sales of
acquired property; and $600,000 for section 523 self-help
housing land development loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502
loans, $89,210,000, of which $6,210,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair
loans, $11,081,000; section 514 farm labor housing,
$6,885,000; section 515 rental housing, $28,987,000[:
Provided, That no funds for new construction for section 515
rental housing may be available for fiscal year 1997]; credit
sales of acquired property, $4,050,000; and section 523 self-
help housing land development loans, $17,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $366,205,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Housing Service, Salaries and
Expenses''.

rental assistance program

For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or
agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended,
$493,870,000; and in addition such sums as may be necessary,
as authorized by section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt
incurred prior to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental
assistance program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act:
Provided, That of this amount not more than $5,900,000 shall
be available for debt forgiveness or payments for eligible
households as authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act,
and not to exceed $10,000 per project for advances to
nonprofit organizations or public agencies to cover direct
costs (other than purchase price) incurred in purchasing
projects pursuant to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act:
Provided further, That agreements entered into or renewed
during fiscal year 1997 shall be funded for a five-year
period, although the life of any such agreement may be
extended to fully utilize amounts obligated.

mutual and self-help housing grants

For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A)
of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $26,000,000, to
remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

rural housing assistance program

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, agreements,
and grants, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 42 U.S.C. 1472,
1474, 1479, 1485, 1486, and 1490(a), except for sections
381E, 381H, 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, [$73,190,000] $136,435,000, to remain
available until expended, for direct loans and loan
guarantees for community facilities, community facilities
grant program, rental assistance associated with and direct
loans for new construction of section 515 rental housing,
rural housing for domestic farm labor grants, supervisory and
technical assistance grants, very low-income housing repair
grants, rural community fire protection grants, rural housing
preservation grants, and compensation for construction
defects of the Rural Housing Service: Provided, That the cost
of direct loans and loan guarantees shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That the amounts appropriated
shall be transferred to loan program and grant accounts as
determined by the Secretary[: Provided further, That no funds
for new construction relating to 515 rental housing may be
available for fiscal year 1997]: Provided further, That of
the funds made available in this paragraph not more than
$1,200,000 shall be available for the multi-family rural
housing loan guarantee program as authorized by section 5 of
Public Law 104-120: Provided further, That if such funds are
not obligated for multi-family rural housing loan guarantees
by June 30, 1997, they remain available for other authorized
purposes under this head: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,200,000 shall be
available for the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and
grants to be made available for empowerment zones and
enterprise communities as authorized by Public Law 103-66:
Provided further, That if such funds are not obligated for
empowerment zones and enterprise communities by June 30,
1997, they remain available for other authorized purposes
under this head.

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Rural Housing Service,
including administering the programs authorized by the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended,
title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, and
cooperative agreements, [$53,889,000] $66,354,000: Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available for employment
pursuant to the second sentence of 706(a) of the Organic Act
of 1944, and not to exceed $520,000 may be used for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

rural development loan fund program account

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, [$18,400,000] $17,270,000, as
authorized by the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C.
9812(a)): Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans of [$40,000,000]
$37,544,000: Provided further, That through June 30, 1997, of
the total amount appropriated $3,345,000 shall be available
for the cost of direct loans, for empowerment zones and
enterprise communities, as authorized by title XIII of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, to subsidize gross
obligations for the principal amount of direct loans,
$7,246,000.

rural economic development loans program account

(including transfers of funds)

For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized
under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, $12,865,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $2,830,000. In addition,
for administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct
loan program, $654,000, which shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses.''

alternative agricultural research and commercialization revolving fund

For necessary expenses to carry out the Alternative
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 5901-5908), [$6,000,000] $10,000,000 is appropriated
to the alternative agricultural research and
commercialization revolving fund.

[[Page S8431]]

rural business--cooperative assistance program

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1928, and 1932, except for
381E, 381H, 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, [$51,400,000] $53,750,000, to remain
available until expended, for direct loans and loan
guarantees for business and industry assistance, rural
business grants, rural cooperative development grants, and
rural business opportunity grants of the Rural Business--
Cooperative Service: Provided, That the cost of direct loans
and loan guarantees shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That $500,000 shall be available for grants to
qualified nonprofit organizations as authorized under section
310B(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
(7 U.S.C. 1932): Provided further, That the amounts
appropriated shall be transferred to loan program and grant
accounts as determined by the Secretary: Provided further,
That, of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed
$3,000,000 shall be available for cooperative development:
Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, not
to exceed $1,300,000 may be available through a cooperative
agreement for the appropriate technology transfer for rural
areas program: Provided further, That, of the total amount
appropriated, not to exceed $148,000 shall be available for
the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to be
made available for business and industry loans for
empowerment zones and enterprise communities as authorized by
Public Law 103-66 and rural development loans for empowerment
zones and enterprise communities as authorized by title XIII
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Provided
further, That if such funds are not obligated for empowerment
zones and enterprise communities by June 30, 1997, they
remain available for other authorized purposes under this
head.

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, including administering the programs authorized by
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended;
section 1323 of the Food Security Act of 1985; the
Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926; for activities relating to
the marketing aspects of cooperatives, including economic
research findings, as authorized by the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946; for activities with institutions
concerning the development and operation of agricultural
cooperatives; and cooperative agreements; $25,680,000:
Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for
employment pursuant to the second sentence of 706(a) of the
Organic Act of 1944, and not to exceed $260,000 may be used
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

Rural Utilities Service

rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account

(including transfers of funds)

Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C.
935), shall be made as follows: 5 percent rural
electrification loans, $125,000,000, 5 percent rural
telecommunications loans, $75,000,000; cost of money rural
telecommunications loans, $300,000,000; municipal rate rural
electric loans, $525,000,000; and loans made pursuant to
section 306 of that Act, rural electric, $300,000,000, and
rural telecommunications, $120,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C.
935), as follows: cost of direct loans, $4,818,000; cost of
municipal rate loans, $28,245,000; cost of money rural
telecommunications loans, $60,000; cost of loans guaranteed
pursuant to section 306, $2,790,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may
exceed 7 percent per year.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $29,982,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses.''

rural telephone bank program account

The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such
expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such
corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out its
authorized programs for the current fiscal year. During
fiscal year 1997 and within the resources and authority
available, gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 935),
$2,328,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the loan programs, $3,500,000.

distance learning and medical link program

For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., as amended, [$7,500,000] $10,000,000,
to remain available until expended, to be available for loans
and grants for telemedicine and distance learning services in
rural areas: Provided, That the costs of direct loans shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974.

rural utilities assistance program

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1928, and 1932, except for
381E, 381H, 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, [$496,868,000] $657,942,000, to remain
available until expended, for direct loans and loan
guarantees and grants for rural water and waste disposal, and
solid waste management grants of the Rural Utilities Service:
Provided, That the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided further, That the
amounts appropriated shall be transferred to loan program and
grant accounts as determined by the Secretary: Provided
further, That, through June 30, 1997, of the total amount
appropriated, $18,700,000 shall be available for the costs of
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to be made
available for empowerment zones and enterprise communities,
as authorized by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That,
of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $18,700,000
shall be for water and waste disposal systems to benefit the
Colonias along the United States/Mexico border, including
grants pursuant to section 306C of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act, as amended: Provided further, That, of
the total amount appropriated, not to exceed [$5,000,000]
$5,400,000 shall be available for contracting with qualified
national organizations for a circuit rider program to provide
technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided
further, That an amount not less than that available in
fiscal year 1996 be set aside and made available for ongoing
technical assistance under sections 306(a)(14) (7 U.S.C.
1926) and 310(B)(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932).

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Rural Utilities Service,
including administering the programs authorized by the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, and cooperative
agreements, $33,195,000: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944, and not to
exceed $105,000 may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109.

TITLE IV

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and
Consumer Service, [$454,000] $554,000.

child nutrition programs

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1769b), except section 21, and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772-1785, and 1789);
except sections 17 and 19; [$8,652,597,000] $8,654,797,000,
to remain available through September 30, 1998, of which
[$3,218,844,000] $3,221,044,000 is hereby appropriated and
$5,433,753,000 shall be derived by transfer from funds
available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7
U.S.C. 612c)[: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be used for new studies
and evaluations]: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000 of
the funds made available under this heading shall be used for
studies and evaluations: Provided further, That up to
$4,031,000 shall be available for independent verification of
school food service claims.

special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(wic)

For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$3,729,807,000, to remain available through September 30,
1998: Provided, That none of the funds made available under
this heading may be used to begin more than two studies and
evaluations: Provided further, That up to $6,750,000 may be
used to carry out the farmers' market nutrition program from
any funds not needed to maintain current caseload levels[:
Provided further, That, of the total amount of fiscal year
1996 carryover funds that cannot be spent in fiscal year
1997, any funds in excess of $100,000,000 may be transferred
by the Secretary to other programs in the Department of
Agriculture, excluding the Forest Service, with prior
notification to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees]: Provided further, That once the amount for
fiscal year 1996 carryover funds has been determined by the
Secretary, any funds in excess of $100,000,000 may be
transferred by the Secretary of Agriculture to any loan
program of the Department and/or to make available up to
$10,000,000 for the WIC farmers' market nutrition program:
Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available to pay administrative expenses of WIC clinics

[[Page S8432]]

except those that have an announced policy of prohibiting
smoking within the space used to carry out the program:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this
account shall be available for the purchase of infant formula
except in accordance with the cost containment and
competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786): Provided
further, That State agencies required to procure infant
formula using a competitive bidding system may use funds
appropriated by this Act to purchase infant formula under a
cost containment contract entered into after September 30,
1996 only if the contract was awarded to the bidder offering
the lowest net price, as defined by section 17(b)(20) of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966, unless the State agency
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
weighted average retail price for different brands of infant
formula in the State does not vary by more than five percent.

food stamp program

For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. [2011-2029] 2011 et seq.), [$27,615,029,000]
$28,521,029,000: Provided, That funds provided herein shall
remain available through September 30, 1997, in accordance
with section 18(a) of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further,
That [$100,000,000] $1,000,000,000 of the foregoing amount
shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and
at such times as may become necessary to carry out program
operations[: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be used for new studies
and evaluations]: Provided further, That not to exceed
$6,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading
shall be used for studies and evaluations: Provided further,
That funds provided herein shall be expended in accordance
with section 16 of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That
this appropriation shall be subject to any work registration
or workfare requirements as may be required by law: Provided
further, That $1,174,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be
available for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico as
authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2028.

commodity assistance program

For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity
supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C.
612c (note)), the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as
amended, and section 110 of the Hunger Prevention Act of
1988, $166,000,000, to remain available through September 30,
1998: Provided, That none of these funds shall be available
to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities
donated to the program.

food donations programs for selected groups

For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C.
612c (note)), [section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C.
2013(b)),] and section 311 of the Older Americans Act of
1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3030a), [$205,000,000]
$141,250,000, to remain available through September 30, 1998.

food program administration

For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food
programs funded under this Act, [$104,487,000] $107,769,000,
of which $5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying
procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations,
improving food stamp coupon handling, and assistance in the
prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and
other violations of law: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

TITLE V

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of
1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development
activities abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to
coordinate and integrate activities of the Department in
connection with foreign agricultural work, including not to
exceed $128,000 for representation allowances and for
expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved August 3,
1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), [$128,005,000] $138,561,000, of which
[$2,792,000] $3,231,000 may be transferred from the Export
Loan Program account in this Act, and [$1,005,000] $1,035,000
may be transferred from the Public Law 480 program account in
this Act: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances of
funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures made
on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private
organizations and institutions under agreements executed
pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance
programs (7 U.S.C. 1736) and the foreign assistance programs
of the International Development Cooperation Administration
(22 U.S.C. 2392)[: Provided further, That funds provided for
foreign market development to trade associations,
cooperatives and small businesses shall be allocated only
after a competitive bidding process to target funds to those
entities most likely to generate additional U.S. exports as a
result of the expenditure].
None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products.

public law 480 program and grant accounts

(including transfers of funds)

For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701-
1715, 1721-1726, 1727-1727f, 1731-1736g), as follows: (1)
[$216,400,000] $218,944,000 for Public Law 480 title I
credit, including Food for Progress programs; (2) $13,905,000
is hereby appropriated for ocean freight differential costs
for the shipment of agricultural commodities pursuant to
title I of said Act and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as
amended; (3) $837,000,000 is hereby appropriated for
commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad
pursuant to title II of said Act; and (4) [$29,500,000]
$40,000,000 is hereby appropriated for commodities supplied
in connection with dispositions abroad pursuant to title III
of said Act: Provided, That not to exceed 15 percent of the
funds made available to carry out any title of said Act may
be used to carry out any other title of said Act: Provided
further, That such sums shall remain available until expended
(7 U.S.C. 2209b).
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct credit agreements
as authorized by the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and the Food for Progress
Act of 1985, as amended, including the cost of modifying
credit agreements under said Act, [$177,000,000]
$179,082,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
Public Law 480 title I credit program, and the Food for
Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent funds
appropriated for Public Law 480 are utilized, [$1,750,000]
$1,818,000.

commodity credit corporation export loans program account

(including transfers of funds)

For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, [$3,381,000] $3,820,000; to cover common overhead
expenses as permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990, of which not to exceed
[$2,792,000] $3,231,000 may be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for the salaries and expenses of the
Foreign Agricultural Service, and of which not to exceed
$589,000 may be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for the salaries and expenses of the Farm
Service Agency.

export credit

The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not
less than $5,500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its
export credit guarantee program extended to finance the
export sales of United States agricultural commodities and
the products thereof, as authorized by section 202 (a) and
(b) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).

TITLE VI

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
rental of special purpose space in the District of Columbia
or elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $907,499,000, of which
not to exceed $87,528,000 in fees pursuant to section 736 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to
this appropriation and remain available until expended:
Provided, That fees derived from applications received during
fiscal year 1997 shall be subject to the fiscal year 1997
limitation: Provided further, That none of these funds shall
be used to develop, establish, or operate any program of user
fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
In addition, fees pursuant to section 354 of the Public
Health Service Act may be credited to this account, to remain
available until expended.
In addition, fees pursuant to section 801 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to this account,
to remain available until expended.
[None of the funds appropriated or made available to the
Federal Food and Drug Administration shall be used to
implement any rule finalizing the August 25, 1995 proposed
rule entitled ``The Prescription Drug Product Labeling;
Medication Guide Requirements,'' except as to any specific
drug or biological product where the FDA determines that
without approved patient information there would be a serious
and significant public health risk.]

General Provisions

Section 601. Effective Medication Guides.--
(a) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services shall request that national
organizations representing health care professionals,
consumer

[[Page S8433]]

organizations, voluntary health agencies, the pharmaceutical
industry, drug wholesalers, patient drug information database
companies, and other relevant parties collaborate to develop
a long-range comprehensive action plan to achieve goals
consistent with the goals of the proposed rule of the Food
and Drug Administration on ``Prescription Drug Product
Labeling: Medication Guide Requirements'' (60 Fed. Reg.
44182; relating to the provision of oral and written
prescription information to consumers).
(b) Plan.--The plan described in subsection (a) shall--
(1) identify the plan goals;
(2) assess the effectiveness of the current private-sector
approaches used to provide oral and written prescription
information to consumers;
(3) develop guidelines for providing effective oral and
written prescription information consistent with the findings
of any such assessment;
(4) develop a mechanism to assess periodically the quality
of the oral and written prescription information and the
frequency with which the information is provided to
consumers; and
(5) provide for compliance with relevant State board
regulations.
(c) Limitation on the authority of the secretary.--The
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
shall have no authority to implement the proposed rule
described in subsection (a), or to develop any similar
regulation, policy statement, or other guideline specifying a
uniform content or format for written information voluntarily
provided to consumers about prescription drugs if, not later
than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
national organizations described in subsection (a) develop
and begin to implement a comprehensive, long-range action
plan (as described in subsection (a)) regarding the provision
of oral and written prescription information.
(d) Secretary review.--Not later than January 1, 2001, the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
shall review the status of private-sector initiatives
designed to achieve the goals of the plan described in
subsection (a), and if such goals are not achieved, the
limitation in subsection (c) shall not apply, and the
Secretary shall seek public comment on other initiatives that
may be carried out to meet such goals. The Secretary shall
not delegate such review authority to the Commissioner of the
Food and Drug Administration.
Sec. 602. Section 3 of the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act
(21 U.S.C 348 nt.) is amended by striking out ``May 1, 1997''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 1, [2002] 1998''.
Sec. 603. Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.--
(a) Imports for export.--Section 801(d)(3) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``accessory of a device which is ready''
and inserting ``accessory of a device, or other article of
device requiring further processing, which is ready'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``is intended to be''
and inserting ``is intended to be further processed by the
initial owner or consignee, or''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``part,'' and inserting ``part, article,'';
and
(B) by striking ``incorporated'' and inserting
``incorporated or further processed''.
(b) Labeling of exported drugs.--Section 801(f) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``If a drug'' and
inserting ``If a drug (other than insulin, an antibiotic
drug, an animal drug, or a drug exported under section
802)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``A drug exported under section 802 is exempt
from this section.''.
(c) Export of certain unapproved drugs and devices.--
Section 802(f)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
is amended by striking ``if the drug or device is not
labeled'' and inserting ``if the labeling of the drug or
device is not''.

buildings and facilities

For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $21,350,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

rental payments (fda)

(including transfers of funds)

For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to
Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and
Drug Administration which are included in this Act,
$46,294,000: Provided, That in the event the Food and Drug
Administration should require modification of space needs, a
share of the salaries and expenses appropriation may be
transferred to this appropriation, or a share of this
appropriation may be transferred to the salaries and expenses
appropriation, but such transfers shall not exceed 5 percent
of the funds made available for rental payments (FDA) to or
from this account.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Management Service

payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation

For necessary payments to the Farm Credit System Financial
Assistance Corporation by the Secretary of the Treasury, as
authorized by section 6.28(c) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971,
as amended, for reimbursement of interest expenses incurred
by the Financial Assistance Corporation on obligations issued
through 1994, as authorized $10,290,000.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),
including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles;
the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the
District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; [$55,101,000]
$56,601,000, including not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided, That the
Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to
attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and
symposia to cover the Commission's costs of providing those
events and symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said
fees shall be credited to this account, to be available
without further appropriation.

[Farm Credit Administration

[limitation on administrative expenses

[Not to exceed $37,478,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249.]

TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the fiscal year 1997 under this Act shall be
available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically
provided for, of not to exceed 667 passenger motor vehicles,
of which 643 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire
of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of
Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of
the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and
service work authorized by the Acts of August 14, 1946, and
July 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 427, 1621-1629), and by chapter 63 of
title 31, United States Code, shall be available for
contracting in accordance with said Acts and chapter.
Sec. 704. The cumulative total of transfers to the Working
Capital Fund for the purpose of accumulating growth capital
for data services and National Finance Center operations
shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided, That no funds in this
Act appropriated to an agency of the Department shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval
of the agency administrator.
Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet
emergency conditions, fruit fly program, and integrated
systems acquisition project; Farm Service Agency, salaries
and expenses funds made available to county committees; and
Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training
program.
New obligational authority for the boll weevil program; up
to 10 percent of the screwworm program of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service; [Food Safety and Inspection
Service, field automation and information management
project;] funds appropriated for rental payments; funds for
the Native American institutions endowment fund in the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
and funds for the competitive research grants (7 U.S.C.
450i(b)), shall remain available until expended.
Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations
available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall
be available to provide appropriate orientation and language
training pursuant to Public Law 94-449.
Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
commodities acquired by the Department in connection with
Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support
operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c
and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in
cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to reimburse the General Services Administration for payment
of space rental and related costs in excess of the amounts
specified in this Act; nor shall this or any other provision
of law require a reduction in the level of rental space or
services below that of fiscal year 1996 or prohibit an
expansion of rental space or services with the use of funds
otherwise appropriated in this Act. Further, no agency of the
Department of Agriculture, from funds otherwise

[[Page S8434]]

available, shall reimburse the General Services
Administration for payment of space rental and related costs
provided to such agency at a percentage rate which is greater
than is available in the case of funds appropriated in this
Act.
Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of
other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such
space will be jointly occupied.
Sec. 712. With the exception of grants awarded under the
Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, Public Law
97-219, as amended (15 U.S.C. 638), none of the funds in this
Act shall be available to pay indirect costs on research
grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service that exceed 14
percent of total Federal funds provided under each award.
Sec. 713. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act,
all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered
estimates, not limitations.
Sec. 714. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
fiscal year 1997 shall remain available until expended to
cover obligations made in fiscal year 1997 for the following
accounts: the rural development loan fund program account;
the Rural Telephone Bank program account; the rural
electrification and telecommunications loans program account;
and the rural economic development loans program account.
Sec. 715. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
1997 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 716. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act
of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the
``Buy American Act'').
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 717. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act, marketing services of the Agricultural
Marketing Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a
relationship between Agricultural Marketing Service or the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and a State or
Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs or to
carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant
resources.
Sec. 718. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
retire more than 5% of the Class A stock of the Rural
Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount
within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the
creation of which has not specifically been authorized by
statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury
or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of
the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which
is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall
receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in
section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to provide food stamp
benefits to households whose benefits are calculated using a
standard deduction greater than the standard deduction in
effect for fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 720. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide assistance to, or to pay the salaries of
personnel who carry out a market promotion/market access
program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) that provides assistance to the U.S.
Mink Export Development Council or any mink industry trade
association.
Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to enroll in excess of
130,000 acres in the fiscal year 1997 wetlands reserve
program, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
Sec. 722. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,000,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture
except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings
and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants.
Sec. 723. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who carry out an export enhancement
program if the aggregate amount of funds and/or commodities
under such program exceeds $100,000,000.
[Sec. 724. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who carry out a farmland protection
program in excess of $2,000,000 authorized by section 388 of
Public Law 104-127.
[Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who carry out a wildlife habitat
incentives program authorized by section 387 of Public Law
104-127.
[Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who carry out a conservation farm
option program in excess of $2,000,000 authorized by section
335 of Public Law 104-127.]
Sec. 727. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries of employees of the Department of
Agriculture who make payments pursuant to a production
flexibility contract entered into under section 111 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-127; 7 U.S.C. 7211) when it is made known to
the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend
such funds that the land covered by that production
flexibility contract is not being [used for the production of
an agricultural commodity] or is not devoted to a conserving
use, unless it is also made known to that Federal official
that the lack of agricultural production or the lack of a
conserving use is a consequence of drought, flood, or other
natural disaster] used for an agricultural or related
activity, including conserving use, as determined by the
Secretary.
Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to extend any existing or
expiring contract in the Conservation Reserve Program
authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3831-3845.
[Sec. 729. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to maintain the price of raw cane sugar (as reported
for an appropriate preceding month for applicable sugar
futures contracts of the Coffee, Sugar, and Cocoa Exchange,
New York) at more than 117\1/2\ percent of the statutory loan
rate under section 158 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act (title 1 of Public Law 104-127).]
Sec. 730. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to carry out the provisions of section 918 of Public Law
104-127, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act.
[Sec. 731. (a) In General.--Any owner on the date of
enactment of this Act of the right to market a nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drug that--
[(1) contains a patented active agent;
[(2) has been reviewed by the Federal Food and Drug
Administration for a period of more than 96 months as a new
drug application; and
[(3) was approved as safe and effective by the Federal Food
and Drug Administration on January 31, 1991, shall be
entitled, for the 2-year period beginning on February 28,
1997, to exclude others from making, using, offering for
sale, selling, or importing into the United States such
active agent, in accordance with section 154(a)(1) of title
35, United States Code.
[(b) Infringement.--Section 271 of title 35, United States
Code shall apply to the infringement of the entitlement
provide under subsection (a).
[(c) Notification.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, any owner granted an
entitlement under subsection (a) shall notify the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the Secretary for
Health and Human Services of such entitlement. Not later than
7 days after the receipt of such notice, the Commission and
the Secretary shall publish an appropriate notice of the
receipt of such notice.]
Sec. 732. [Funds] Hereafter, funds appropriated to the
Department of Agriculture may be used for incidental expenses
such as transportation, uniforms, lodging, and subsistence
for volunteers serving under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2272,
when such volunteers are engaged in the work of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; and for promotional items of
nominal value relating to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Volunteer Programs.
[Sec. 733. It is the sense of Congress that, not later than
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture should--
[(1) release a detailed plan for compensating wheat farmers
and handlers adversely affected by the karnal bunt quarantine
in Riverside and Imperial Counties of California, which
should include--
[(A) an explanation of the factors to be used to determine
the compensation amount for wheat farmers and handlers,
including

[[Page S8435]]

how contract and spot market prices will be handled; and
[(B) compensation for farmers who have crops positive for
karnal bunt and compensation for farmers who have crops which
are negative for karnal bunt, but which cannot go to market
due to the lack of Department action on matching restrictions
on the negative wheat with the latest risk assessments; and
[(2) review the risk assessments developed by the
University of California at Riverside and submit a report to
Congress describing how these risk assessments will impact
the Department of Agriculture policy on the quarantine area
for the 1997 wheat crop.]
Sec. 734. Not to exceed 10 percent of the amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for the
Rural Housing Assistance Program, the Rural Business-
Cooperative Assistance Program, and the Rural Utilities
Assistance Program may be transferred between these programs
for authorized purposes.
Sec. 735. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture by this Act may be
used to detail or assign an individual from an agency or
office funded in this Act to any other agency or office for
more than 60 days, unless the Secretary provides notification
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that an
employee detail or assignment in excess of 60 days is
required.
Sec. 736. Section 747(e) of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 is amended by inserting,
``effective October 1, 1996'' following ``The Secretary shall
make grants'' in Section 747(e)(2).
Sec. 737. Labeling of Raw Poultry Products.--
(a) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to implement or enforce the
final rule related to the labeling of raw poultry products
promulgated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service on
August 25, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 44395), and the final rule
shall not be effective during fiscal year 1997.
(b) Final rule.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
issue a revised final rule related to the labeling of raw
poultry products that--
(1) maintains the standard that the term ``fresh'' may be
used only for raw poultry products the internal core
temperature of which has not fallen below 26 deg. Fahrenheit;
(2) deletes the requirement that poultry products the
internal core temperature of which has ever been less than
26 deg. Fahrenheit, but more than 0 deg. Fahrenheit, be
labeled as ``hard chilled'' or ``previously hard chilled'',
except that--
(A) the products shall be prohibited under the rule from
being labeled as ``fresh'' but shall not be required to bear
any specific alternative labeling; and
(B) nothing in this section shall be interpreted as
modifying the requirements for labeling of all poultry
products the internal core temperature of which has ever
fallen to 0 deg. Fahrenheit as ``frozen'';
(3) provides for a tolerance from the 26 deg. Fahrenheit
standard established by the rule of--
(A) 1 deg. Fahrenheit for poultry products within an
official processing establishment;
(B) 2 deg. Fahrenheit for poultry products in commerce;
(4) exempts from temperature testing wings, tenders,
hearts, livers, gizzards, necks, and products that undergo
special processing, such as sliced poultry products; and
(5) in all other terms and conditions (including the period
of time permitted for implementation) is substantively
identical to the rule referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Revised labeling standards.--Not later than 60 days
after the issuance of a revised final rule under subsection
(b), the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service,
shall issue a compliance directive for the enforcement of the
revised labeling standards established by the rule, including
standards for--
(1) temperature testing that are based on measurements at
the center of the deepest muscle; and
(2) sampling methods that ensure that the average of
individual temperatures within poultry product lots of each
specific product type (such as whole birds, whole muscle leg
products, and whole muscle breast products) meet the
standards.
(d) Severability.--If any provision of this section or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the validity of the remainder of this section and of
the application of the provision to any other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected.
Sec. 738. Section 7 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2016) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Electronic Benefit Transfers.--
``(1) Definition of electronic benefit transfer system.--In
this subsection, the term `electronic benefit transfer
system' means a system under which a governmental entity
distributes benefits pursuant to this Act by establishing an
account that may be accessed electronically by a recipient of
the benefits or payments.
``(2) Applicable law.--Disclosures, protections,
responsibilities, and remedies established by the Federal
Reserve Board under section 904 of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1692b) shall not apply to benefits
under this Act delivered through any electronic benefit
transfer system.
``(3) Replacement of benefits.--Regulations issued by the
Secretary regarding the replacement of benefits and liability
for replacement of benefits under an electronic benefit
transfer system shall be similar to the regulations in effect
for a paper-based food stamp issuance system.''.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate
today the bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture
and related agencies for the fiscal year 1997. This bill provides
funding for all of the activities under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture, except for the U.S. Forest Service. It also
funds the activities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, and pays for expenses and payments of the
Farm Credit System.
This bill recommends total new budget authority of $54.3 billion.
This is $9 billion less than the 1996 enacted level for these programs
and these activities. It is $4 billion less than the President's fiscal
year 1997 budget request. It is $1.2 billion more than the level
recommended by the House.
Over 76 percent of the total to be spent under this bill will go for
funding of the Nation's domestic food assistance programs. That
represents $40.5 billion of this $54.3 billion bill. This is up from 63
percent of the total funding in the bill in 1996. These programs
include food stamps, the national school lunch and elderly feeding
programs, and the supplemental feeding program for women, infants and
children.
The bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.118 billion
in budget authority and $13.409 billion in outlays for fiscal year
1997. These amounts are consistent with the allocation the subcommittee
has received under the Budget Act.
Senators should also be aware these allocations are approximately
$510 million in budget authority and $440 million in outlays less than
what would be required under a freeze. The suggestion this year, for
those who are following the budget debate, was that spending under the
discretionary programs of the Federal Government ought to be held level
with last year's spending. That was the goal, that was the objective.
This bill meets that target and then some. There is actually a
reduction in spending from the freeze level in this bill as compared
with last year's or the current fiscal year's budget and appropriations
levels.
We do have some parts of this bill where spending is increased. Among
the discretionary spending increases recommended are an additional
$12.8 million to continue the efforts of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply. The level
recommended for the Food Safety and Inspection Service is adequate to
maintain the current inspection system and to provide the needed
investments required to implement the new hazard analysis and critical
control point meat and poultry inspection system. We are hopeful that
by bringing this new system online we can take advantage of new
technologies, new scientific advances, in the detection of those
contaminants in the food supply that we would not be able to detect
otherwise, and we will help ensure that we are doing everything that
possibly can be done to safeguard the food supply and the consumers of
food in America from harm and ill health.
In order to implement the system, the bill provides funding to fill
all inspector vacancies, funding to train inspectors in the new
inspection system, and funding for the annualization of fiscal year
1996 pay raises and anticipated 1997 pay raises. This demonstrates the
high priority this committee places on the safety of our Nation's meat
and poultry and our commitment to ensure that American consumers
continue to have the safest food in the world.
Another area of emphasis in this bill is agriculture research. The
bill provides $1.1 billion for funding of agriculture research. This is
approximately $7.3 million below the level requested by the
administration, but it is $25 million above the House-recommended
level. Included in this amount is $52 million for food safety research.
The committee has provided the full increase of $7.5 million requested
for food safety research.
For extension activities, the bill recommends $431 million, which is
$3.3 million above the fiscal year 1996 level. The Smith-Lever and
Hatch Act formula funding are continued at 1996 levels. The increase
recommended for extension activities will provide first-time funding
for institutional capacity

[[Page S8436]]

grants and extension work at the 29 tribally controlled colleges, or
1994 Institutions.
Farm credit programs are funded by the bill, which provides $3.1
billion in loan levels for the coming fiscal year. This is an increase
of $65 million over the House-recommended level.
The bill also recognizes that efficiencies can be gained through the
consolidation of programs to improve their efficiency in terms of
administrative costs and paperwork and the like. So the bill
consolidates funding for 14 rural development grant and loan programs
into a rural community investment program. It is divided into three
subprograms: housing, business cooperative assistance, and rural
utilities assistance. The 1996 appropriations act created the first of
these consolidations for rural utilities. The funding levels provided
for all three of the programs were equal to the comparable levels
requested in the budget.
On an aggregate basis, the funding levels in the bill represent an
increase of $231 million more than the House-passed bill. The bill
funds, as I mentioned before, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
and the Food and Drug Administration. We are trying to provide levels
of funding that will enable these two agencies to do the job they are
required to do by law and that will enable them to discharge their
responsibilities under the law.
The bill also carries a provision to ensure the continuation of WIC
Program funding and Food Stamp Act funding, as well. The bill includes
a provision to amend the Food Stamp Act, to exclude electronic benefit
transfer systems for the delivery of food stamp benefits from the
Federal Reserve Board's ``Regulation E.''
There are other provisions of the bill that seek to deal with
challenges in the food service area, and we hope Senators will find
that we have demonstrated a sensitivity to the needs of those who
cannot adequately provide for their own nutrition needs and need
Government help to do it. But we also reflect in this bill changes and
reforms that have been made by law to try to ensure that there is a
sense of personal responsibility for one to take care of himself and
his family, and that also is reflected in this legislation.
Senators may remember that, last year, when this bill was on the
floor, there was a big debate over a regulation being proposed by the
administration--the Food Safety and Inspection Service, specifically--
dealing with when poultry products could be labeled as ``fresh'' or
``frozen.'' Well, I am happy to report to the Senate that a compromise
has been reached among those who were directly interested in the debate
last year, so that the definition of the term ``fresh,'' as used in
labeling of raw poultry products, is reflected and included in this
legislation. We hope that resolves the issue. Of course, the
administration still has differences of opinion about it, and those may
be heard at some point in the debate.
We think this is a responsible way of resolving that issue. There are
other provisions related to legislative changes the House recommended
that we deleted. The House rewrote some provisions that were included
in the farm bill, and we did not go along with those House provisions.
So Senators will notice that we do not provide a cap on the price of
raw sugarcane, for example. We do not approve a provision relating to
planting requirements under the farm bill that would be required to
meet eligibility standards for a market transition payment. We revised
that to make it consistent with the language of the law, the farm bill
that was passed by both Houses and signed by the President. So we do
not try to go in and rewrite the farm bill in this bill. We urge
Senators not to try to do that with amendments.
Only 24 percent of the total funding recommended by this bill is
discretionary. These have been difficult challenges for the committee
to resolve, trying to determine how to allocate scarce funds that are
made available to this subcommittee under the budget resolution. We
hope Senators will agree that we have undertaken this and presented a
bill that is done in a fair way, so that those essential activities in
the Department of Agriculture that are authorized and required by law
are funded. But we have tried to be responsible, and we hope Senators
agree that we have. These are recommendations that we make to the
Senate, which we hope will be approved.
Let me say that this bill could not have been written without the
excellent cooperation and dedicated and intelligent assistance of the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, the ranking Democrat on the
subcommittee. He has served as chairman of this subcommittee in the
past, and it has been a pleasure to work with him and the members of
his staff in the development of this bill.
We had hearings all through the earlier parts of this year. We heard
from all of the agencies and departments, whose budgets were reviewed
by our subcommittee very carefully. We have considered the suggestions
of others outside of the Congress, who have opinions to be expressed on
these subjects. So we have tried to consider all of the relevant
evidence and facts that ought to be considered before presenting this
bill to the Senate. We hope the Senate will approve it, and we
recommend that it be adopted.
We know that Senators may have amendments. If they do have
amendments, we will be glad to debate them. Let me repeat the
suggestion of the majority leader when he was asking consent to go to
this bill today. We hope to complete action on this bill today. That
means that all amendments that are going to be offered should be
offered today and debated today. We will reserve any votes on those
amendments, and any vote on final passage, until tomorrow. We
appreciate the cooperation of Senators that will enable us to
accomplish that goal.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Has there been a
unanimous-consent agreement entered that we would start back-to-back
votes on welfare bill amendments in the morning?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 9 o'clock, yes, that is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. Does the consent agreement continue on what we will do
after those votes and final passage on the welfare bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is reminded that it is at 9:30 that
we vote and 9 o'clock that we meet. After getting rid of the list of
votes, we will resume consideration of the agriculture bill.
Mr. BUMPERS. That is the reason I was asking. I hope we do not have
to resume. I hope we can finish the bill this afternoon and this
evening.
I am pleased to join my very able colleague, Senator Cochran, in
bringing to the Senate floor the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill
for Agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug Administration,
and related agencies. This bill, reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, provides $54.276 billion in total obligational
authority for the coming year. That is $1.224 billion more than the
House provided and $4 billion below the President's request. It is
within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. This bill is nearly $10
billion below the amount under which we are operating this year, 1996.
That will be $10 billion less than in 1997. The subcommittee's
discretionary allocation has again been reduced this year from $13.31
billion in budget authority for 1996 to $12.102 billion for 1997. That
is a reduction in discretionary spending of $529 million dollars.
Unfortunately, we have received an increase of $300 million-plus in our
allocation, which gets us a little closer to last year's level, but
still the bottom line is that we have less to spend again this year.
Mr. President, in all of my years on this subcommittee, the
Agriculture Subcommittee, this year has been the most difficult. That
causes me to, again, congratulate Senator Cochran for his leadership in
working through these very difficult problems and crafting a bill to
meets the expectations of most Senators. It meets the hard-pressed
needs of rural America and, also, America's dependence on a safe supply
of food and drugs.

There are still plenty of unmet needs in rural America, but, given
the constraints under which we are operating, this is an excellent
bill.
One item in the bill is very important to all of us, and it is
greatly improved over last year's funding level.

[[Page S8437]]

The Water and Sewer Program in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in
my opinion, is just about the very best investment we make. It improves
the quality of life for all people when they have pure water and sewer
systems that are safe. Last year, these programs were severely
underfunded. But this year, Senator Cochran has been able to provide an
increase that almost brings us to our budget request. That is an
admirable achievement.
Let me digress to point out that people who travel around the world
find that there are very few countries that you can visit where you can
turn on the tap water and feel relatively safe in drinking it. As a
matter of fact, I can only think of one or two right now where you can
do that. The people who live in and near Washington, DC, have just
recently found that not only happens in other countries but it happens
right here in the United States in some of the major metropolitan
areas.
In other areas, this bill provides level funding for the WIC
Program--women, infants and children. Historically, this program has
witnessed annual increases in funding that have actually exceeded the
caseload. So we have been carrying over money in the WIC Program. This
program has accumulated, and it has reduced the pressure on us to
continue increasing the amount of money every year. Even considering
the general budget constraints, we are within reach of full funding for
WIC, a goal which I believe is shared by every Member of the U.S.
Senate.
As WIC administrators work this coming year to provide nutritional
assistance to women, infants, and children, I hope that next year we
will finally reach the goal of full funding and the more important goal
of full participation.
Last year, Congress passed and sent to the President a new farm bill.
This year, when the bill was considered by the House, a number of
provisions were included to change some of the underlying philosophy of
the farm bill. I did not vote for the farm bill. I did not like it, and
I still do not like it. But that is beside the point at this stage of
the game.
Contracts that farmers all across America thought would guarantee
them payments for 7 years were being reduced by the House
Appropriations Committee even before the farmers got their first
payment. Regardless of my views of the so-called freedom to farm
payments, we need to remember that farmers are now in the middle of
their growing season. Their investments are on the line, and they
deserve to know what to expect and that the rules are not going to be
changed in the middle of the game. The chairman has already alluded to
the fact that he hopes Senators will not try to redebate that bill. In
the bill before us, we have taken great pains not to amend the basic
rationale for last year's farm bill.
There is one major concern I have that deserves mention. When the
President's budget was presented to this subcommittee, loan authority
assumptions were much too high to be met considering the small subsidy
provided. Mr. President, let me just explain that.
Every loan program is scored by OMB and the Congressional Budget
Office as to how much money you have to assume you are going to lose.
If you are going to loan $1 million, you have to put some amount in
there for what the banks would call reserve for loan losses. That is
called the subsidy rate. The subsidy rate in this bill as provided by
the administration, in my opinion, is much too small to fund the
authority of loans set out in all of these different Federal programs.
In my opinion, we are not going to be able to loan as much unless we
have a supplemental appropriation sometime next spring to raise that
subsidy level.
We are including in the managers' package an amendment that will
allow the Secretary to transfer excess WIC funds to meet the needs of
loan programs such as those tied to water and sewer programs in rural
housing.
Mr. President, before anybody thinks that is cruel and taking money
from women, infants and children to fund a subsidy rate for water and
sewer programs, bear in mind that this is money not used by WIC. This
is similar to an amendment I offered last year that provided an
additional $36 million in the Water and Sewer Program with no
detrimental effect to the WIC participation. This amendment will help,
but it probably will not provide enough additional budget authority to
achieve full program levels. That is the reason I mention additions to
the subsidy in some supplemental appropriations next spring.
I hope in future budget submissions, the administration will take
greater care to make sure that rising interest rates or other economic
conditions do not provide falsely optimistic assumptions of what may be
the reality on the first day of the following fiscal year.
I also want to mention an issue which I raised during subcommittee
consideration of this bill related to an FDA proposal to require
certain labeling requirements for prescription drugs--the so-called
med-guide rule.
Let me digress just a moment to say that--this is a little personal--
I recently had an illness. I went to the drugstore to get four
different medications. I have studiously avoided taking aspirin all of
my life. I hate medicine. I do not like to take it. But in this case it
was required. For the first time in my life, the pharmacist with each
of the four prescriptions handed me a rather detailed description of
the medicine--what it was designed to do, contraindications to look
for, any reactions that you might have. I read it very carefully. It is
the first time I had ever gotten anything like that.
As it turned out, I was allergic to one of the drugs, which caused me
to have a fever, a rash, and I had to quit taking it. But the
informational sheet that the pharmacist gave me had pointed out that
that very thing might happen.
That is good information. It is the information that the
pharmaceutical-buying public is entitled to. I understand--and I agree
with the concerns of the Food and Drug Administration--that consumers
need to be provided with this information.
As I pointed out, some pharmacies are already doing it on a voluntary
basis. Of course, they are getting their information from the
pharmaceutical manufacturers of those drugs. But all pharmacies are not
doing this now. In some cases, the information is not totally accurate
or complete.
So in the full committee, I offered report language that will help
relieve some of the concerns that Commissioner Kessler expressed to me
about the statutory language contained in this bill. I understand the
House has similar language but of a nature more to the liking of the
commission. In my report, language is designed to give FDA assurances
that the information to be provided to consumers will be appropriately
crafted and higher rates of participation by pharmacies will be
obtained.
Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. Again, I want to
congratulate my good friend and colleague, Senator Cochran and his able
staff in drafting the bill now before us.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Arkansas for his kind remarks and again repeat my expression of
appreciation for his hard work and his good assistance in the
preparation of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments
which are at the desk to H.R. 3603 be considered and agreed to en bloc;
that no points of order be waived thereon; that the measure, as
amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know that some Senators are considering
amendments. One Senator has just come to the floor--Senator Gregg of
New Hampshire--who wanted to give the Senate notice that he intended to
offer an amendment on a subject. Maybe, if he can tell us when he wants
to do that, we can reach some agreement as to the time. I know there
are a couple of other Senators who have asked that they be permitted to
offer amendments early in the consideration of the bill. Senator McCain
is one, and there may be others.
So we are ready to accept the suggestions of Senators for changes in
the bill. I would be happy to yield to my

[[Page S8438]]

friend from New Hampshire if he would like to respond to my inquiry.
Mr. GREGG. I am happy to respond to the inquiry of the Senator from
Mississippi. I would like to offer my amendment when it is convenient
to the Senator from Mississippi.
I ask if he would ask unanimous consent that no second-degree
amendments be offered to my amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I can say that we have gotten notice--and
maybe the Senator from Arkansas has heard of this--from one Senator on
this side of the aisle who asked that no unanimous-consent agreement be
made on any amendment relating to the issue of sugar.
Having heard that--I do not know whether the Senator has heard that
or not--I do not know of any objection to any agreements on this side
of the aisle on that subject. We have not heard of any. My thought
would be if the Senator has an amendment to simply go ahead and offer
it and let us see what happens. If Senators want to debate it, they can
come and debate it.
Mr. GREGG. In a prior discussion with the Senator from Mississippi,
it was my understanding this was going to be subject to a time
limitation of 40 minutes.
Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to that. I have heard there may be
an objection on the other side of the aisle. There is no objection on
this side.
Mr. BUMPERS. There will be an objection, I say to the Senator from
Mississippi, on this side.
Mr. GREGG. I guess if I had known that I would not have foreclosed my
rights on other parts of this bill.
Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator has all of his rights. There are no rights
of his whatsoever that have been extinguished in any way or diminished
in any way.
Mr. GREGG. There are a few that have been extinguished and
diminished, I point out to the Senator, in allowing----
Mr. COCHRAN. The committee amendments to be adopted.
Mr. GREGG. The committee amendments to go forward. It was my
understanding that committee amendments would go forward because I was
going to be given a specific time and time limit. That does not appear
to be the case. I find that to be inconsistent with the understanding I
had. And I guess I just have to accept the fact things happen that way
around here.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. If I may just in a general colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the committee say that normally when we have
a series of amendments to be offered on a bill like this, we sort of go
back and forth between the Democratic side and the Republican side. I
would suggest that that is fine if you have the Republicans and
Democrats waiting to offer amendments, but that very seldom happens on
this bill. And if there are three Republicans and no Democrats in the
Chamber waiting to offer amendments, then I suggest we take them and
not sit around waiting for somebody on the other side to come and offer
amendments in order to accommodate a protocol we have used in the past.
Would the Senator agree with that?
Mr. COCHRAN. I certainly agree with the Senator. We want to complete
action on all the amendments. The majority leader wanted to have votes
on whatever amendments have to be voted on tomorrow and final passage
tomorrow. To do that we are going to have to move along because I have
seen a list of amendments that we have heard may be offered, and there
are some 20 on that list. So in order to expedite the handling of those
amendments, I agree with the Senator that we should move along. We
would like for Senators to come now to the floor and start offering
these amendments so we could dispose of them.
Mr. BUMPERS. I noticed that the Senator and I each have an amendment
which I think have been agreed to. The Senator has one to provide for
electronic warehouse receipts, is that correct? Could we dispose of
that one now?
Mr. COCHRAN. Senator Pressler was going to offer that. We could offer
it for him, but if he wants to be here and offer that amendment, we
will give him an opportunity to do so.
Mr. BUMPERS. All right.
Mr. COCHRAN. Maybe we will let him know he should come and offer that
amendment if it is convenient at this time for him. We are actually
waiting on some language before we could offer that. The Senator could
go ahead and proceed to offer his amendment, if he would like.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we are scratching through here trying to
find this amendment. Until we can find it, let me suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislate bill 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. 4958

(Purpose: To transfer $50,000 from CSREES research and education to
extension activities)

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask
that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an
amendment numbered 4958.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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:

On page 12, line 25, strike ``$46,068,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$46,018,000''.
On page 14, line 10, strike ``$418,358,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$418,308,000''.
On page 17, line 8, strike ``$11,331,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$11,381,000''.
On page 17, line 8, strike ``$431,072,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$431,122,000''.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would reduce the total
recommended for special research grants under research and education
activities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service by $50,000 and increase the amount recommended for Federal
administration under extension activities of the service by the same
amount.
The amendment would affect only funds recommended for research and
extension work in Mississippi. It would create a new grant under
Federal administration for an extension specialist in Mississippi of
$50,000 to cover an unfunded requirement which was just brought to my
attention. To offset this additional funding, the amount recommended
for aquaculture research in Mississippi would be reduced from the
$642,000 to $592,000, eliminating the additional funds recommended to
enable the National Center for Physical Acoustics to provide additional
support to the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center.
Mr. President, we have shown this amendment to the other side, and we
understand there is no objection.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, that amendment is acceptable to this
side. Has it been agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not been agreed to.
Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 4958) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. 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 bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, since it is 3 o'clock, this being the time
I was advised to bring this amendment to the floor and at that time
there was to be a time agreement, which appears now will not occur, I
thought I would discuss my amendment and point out some of the problems
with the sugar program and then make a decision later on as to whether
or not I will

[[Page S8439]]

offer it in this context or not. But essentially what this amendment
deals with is the sugar program.
For those who may be following this debate in some other venue other
than this floor, because I know everybody who is a Member of the Senate
understands the sugar program, the sugar program is the last vestige of
gross corporate welfare in the farm community.
In the farm bill that was just recently passed, there was a major
initiative undertaken to try to put the farm community generally on a
more market-oriented approach, although some arguments might claim it
is even less market oriented. At least it was an attempt to have some
forces brought to bear on what farmers would plant, how much they would
plant of a certain commodity which would be something other than a
decision made by a Government leader. It would be the marketplace.
However, there still exists this sugar program which has just the
opposite approach toward financing and growing and creating of sugar in
this country. The sugar program, as it is basically structured today,
is a classic, what can best be defined as a Marxist system of
economics. Essentially, the Government sets a price for a commodity
which far exceeds what the marketplace would set for that commodity
were the marketplace allowed to work in its ordinary fashion, and then
it requires the consumer to pay that price no matter what the
consumer's interest may be. As a result, the growers of that product
grow it, make a great deal of money and have no relationship between
what they grow and what the market wants or what they grow and what the
market wishes to pay. It is a classic definition of Marxism.
In fact, this program is so outrageous that it costs the American
consumer approximately $1.4 billion a year of subsidies to a very small
cadre of very influential sugar growers. In fact, I think the number I
saw was something like less than 70 sugar growers obtaining a huge
percentage of the income from this program.
This subsidy is a function of the fact that it costs about 23 cents a
pound for sugar in the United States, whereas on the world market, it
costs about 13 cents a pound for sugar. Think about that for a minute.
It is hard to believe that an American product would cost American
consumers twice what the world market is. You might expect that in the
old Soviet Union. You might even expect it in Cuba today. But in the
United States, for somebody to be paying twice the cost of a product
that is paid by people in other countries for that same product when
that product is fully fungible around the world is incomprehensible. It
just runs against the whole concept of a market economy, of an American
system, what the United States theoretically stands for in the
international community, what we stood for years against the Soviet
system and what has theoretically, at least, won the debate of
international economics--something called market forces.
If a commodity costs 10 cents or 13 cents in Brazil, or let's take a
more industrialized state--although Brazil is a very industrialized
state--say, Spain, Japan, or France, and that commodity, that item you
want to buy costs 13 cents, in this case that is called a pound of
sugar--if you wanted to make some chocolate chip cookies maybe or a
cake--and in the United States, it costs 23 cents, you would say,
``Well, that can't be, that can't be. Why would that be?''
Why, in a country that professes a free-market approach to economics,
an international world free market, would one commodity that we grow in
the United States that is grown around the world and moves from country
to country with fair ease, why would that commodity cost 10 cents more
in the United States per pound than it does in some other reasonably
industrialized nation?
The reason is because the influence of the people who make all the
money on this product is so great that they are able to set up a system
which benefits a few at the cost of many. It is pretty much the last
surviving system of this type of productivity in our country in the
farm program area. There is still some of this, obviously, in the
peanut area, and to a slighter degree, you can argue in the dairy area,
but a much slighter degree. But clearly, sugar is unique in having this
level of perversion of the marketplace for the benefit of a few at the
expense of the many, at the rather significant expense, $1.4 billion of
expense.
You might think that people who would be getting a $1.4 billion extra
price for their product beyond what the market usually bears or would
reasonably bear, would think that they were satisfied, but that is not
the case here. I suppose greed feeds on greed, and it is inevitable, if
you have proven that you can be really greedy and successful, you can
get even greedier.
So this group of great troughers--by troughers, I mean porker,
corporate pork--this group of magnificent troughers--these folks would
win just about any contest at any country fair in the pork-producing
category--decided that not only do they have to have a price that is
almost twice the world price for the product, which the American
consumer has to pay, they do not even want to have to pay off--when
they borrow from the Federal Government to produce that product, should
they by some unbelievable process lose money, they do not even want to
pay it off.
Not only do they want a product that is priced at twice what it is
worth, but should they actually lose money producing a product that is
priced twice what it is worth--it is hard to believe they might lose
money--but should they lose money, they do not even want to have to pay
it off. They have something called the Nonrecourse Loan Program. This
is almost beyond belief. It is so egregious in its attack on all
sensibility relative to the marketplace--a nonrecourse loan.
If you are a student in the United States and you find yourself going
to a school that costs you more than you can afford to pay from the
summer job you have been working for the last 5 or 6 years, and it
costs more than your parents can afford to pay because they cannot
simply scrape together enough, because a college education has become
so expensive, if you are a student and you borrow $1,500, $2,000 from
the Federal Government, and you cannot pay it back, does the Federal
Government say, ``That's OK, forget it, you don't have to worry about
it''? No. The Federal Government requires you to pay it back. We do not
do a very good job of collecting it. I admit that. We have to change
our collection system. But to those people who are honest and sincere--
that is the majority of our American students--they have to pay their
loans back.

But not the sugar industry. No. The sugar industry, after ripping the
American public off, after the $1.4 billion a year, after being the
biggest porkers in America, they do not even want to pay back their
loans.
If you are a veteran, and you get a VA loan, have served this
country--maybe you have even given blood for this country, maybe you
are even a wounded veteran--and you get a VA loan, and you find that
you cannot pay that loan back, does the American Government say, ``OK.
OK. Forget it. We won't collect that debt''? No. It does not. It duns
your VA benefits, probably garnishes them, takes them as payment even
though you may not be able to afford it because you may have other
expenses at that time.
But do we say that to the sugar producers in this country? No. We do
not. To the sugar producers, we say, because they have the power to
demand it, ``If you don't want to pay your loans back, tens of millions
of dollars of loans back, it's OK. Forget it. That's all right. The
American taxpayers are already paying $1.4 billion to your industry.
Why not pay a little bit more through a nonrecourse-loan process?''
If you happen to be a homeowner who borrows money through the HUD
program, and you have your first home, and something goes wrong with
your family finances, and the Government comes in and takes your home--
which might be similar to a recourse loan--does the Government stop
there, to the nonrecourse loan? No. It does not. No. It does not. If
there is a debt above the obligation that is available through the
repossession of your home, the Government has the right--may not
exercise it--but it has the right to collect that extra debt from your
wages.
So if you own a home, and through some real tragedy or some
unfortunate situation your home is taken from you as a result of your
not being able to

[[Page S8440]]

pay back that debt--and it is a Government loan--the Government has the
right to sell the home, and to the extent that the price of that home,
as sold, does not cover the cost of your loan, and you personally are
liable, you personally, you, John or Mary Jones, working down at the
pizza store or working on an assembly line in Detroit or working at a
computer shop in New Hampshire, you are personally liable for that
loan.
Is the sugar producer--even though his or her company may have
borrowed millions of dollars--are they liable for that loan? No. They
are not. No. They are not. It really is hard to believe that that would
be the case in this economy, in this structure we would have that sort
of situation. But that is the way it is. That is the way it is
structured, as unbelievable as it may seem.
I guess it survives because of the fact that it has what is known as
logrolling. ``You scratch my back; I'll scratch your back.'' There are
enough people producing this product in the country, although many of
them are not very large compared to the big guys, that they all feel
they have to protect the program and, therefore, everybody helps
everybody else out. But it is pretty hard to defend this program under
any sort of--you do not have to look through a magnifying glass to
defend this, to look at this program, and see it is an outrage. You can
take this glass of water, and put this on top of the program, and you
would see that this program is just an unbelievable outrage on the body
politic of the American consumer, and $1.4 billion a year in the
process.
Nonrecourse loans. Just imagine it. If you are a student you have to
pay your loan back. If you are a home-owner, you have to pay your loan
back. If you are a veteran who served this country, you have to pay
your loan back. Even if it is only $1,000, you have to pay it back.
If you are a sugar grower, processor, you do not have to pay it back.
You do not have to pay it back. That is after you made the price of the
product twice what it is worth. Pretty outrageous. ``Sweetheart deal''
I think is the term that most appropriately comes to mind. Corporate
pork would be an understatement.
There is some logic, I suppose, to say that small farmers need to be
protected. Maybe you will hear small farmer stories. Well, maybe small
farmers do need to be protected. And to the extent we have good stories
about small farmers, I suspect there will be some nice sad stories
told. But the fact is that the amendment I am going to offer is not
going to affect any small farmers. It is going to affect farmers of
over $10 million in sales. And that is not a small farm. This is not a
small farm in New England, not small anyplace. And $10 million is a
good many sales. So small farm stories are not applicable to this issue
at this time, although certainly they will be raised.
This issue, the issue of the sugar program, has been brought up on a
number of occasions in this body. It has always been defeated. Any
attempt to address the sugar program has been defeated. It was defeated
last year even in the midst of major rewriting of the farm programs
generally, as I mentioned earlier. Defeated a couple of years ago. It
has always lost, but usually the amendments have been directed at
substantive reform of the pricing mechanism. You know, this fact that
you, the consumers, are paying 23 cents for a pound of sugar when your
neighbors, maybe relatives in Canada, are paying 13 cents.
So that has been the usual target of the amendments. That has been
soundly defeated because the influences I mentioned of so many
different groups growing this product around the country is so
pervasive. So my amendment--which the recourse issue does not take on
that core issue of pricing policy, although pricing policy certainly
should be addressed. And I would be happy to do it if I thought I had a
chance of being successful. But I know I do not. My amendment takes on
the issue of recourse.
As a practical matter nobody in this body should object to this,
because, as I mentioned, the price of the product has been made so high
that how can you object to the concept of having to pay back your loans
when you are already getting such a huge subsidized price? Then if you
compare the fact that you are requiring people to pay back their loans
who are fairly large businesses--$10 million in sales--well, that is
not too outrageous, not too outrageous, to require them to pay back
their loans.
So I am talking about really a peripheral amendment here. I have to
admit to that. I wish it was more at the heart of the sugar program. I
wish it went to the pricing mechanism. But you know, I accept reality.
I cannot win that one. I got 35 votes last year, probably about the
same this year. So what this amendment does--I hope my fellow Members
of the Senate will take a look at it who voted against affecting the
pricing mechanism. It does not address that. So all the sugar beet
growers and all the sugarcane growers are still going to get their 23
cents a pound out of the American consumer. They are going to get their
pound of sugar out of the American consumer.
What they should not get, however, is this nonrecourse treatment that
we do not give to students, we do not give to homeowners, we do not
give to veterans. I mean, let us have some decency around here. Let us
admit that we will let them go to the trough and maybe eat everything
in it, but let us not let them eat the trough, too. It is getting a
little outrageous.
So that is the purpose of this amendment. And I regret that the
context of offering this amendment puts me in a difficult position,
because I understand that I am not going to be protected on second-
degrees, and I understand I am not going to be protected on time. I
will say this, however, that I do think this is an important issue to
vote on, that we will vote on this issue, I hope, before we complete
this bill. I have no desire to delay this bill.
I know the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Arkansas
have worked hard to move this bill quickly, and they have done a superb
job of getting it out of committee. On the general farm programs, they
have done an extraordinary job of funding those in, I think, a
responsible way. This program, really, is independent of that effort.
They have done an excellent job on this bill. I do not want to delay
it. I want the bill to get through as soon as it can.
I do think this has to be voted on. I hope when I send this amendment
to the desk, it will not be subject to a second-degree amendment. It
can be couched in a variety of terms, so obviously we can return to
this issue if it is, ad nauseam.

Amendment No. 4959

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to make loans to large
processors of sugarcane and sugar beets unless the loans require the
processors to repay the full amount of the loans, plus interest)

Mr. GREGG. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 4959.
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. . REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN SUGAR LOANS.

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act may be used to make a loan to a processor of
sugarcane or sugar beets, or both, who has an annual revenue
that exceeds $10 million, unless the terms of the loan
require the processor to repay the full amount of the loan,
plus interest.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the clerk for reading the amendment. I did want
the whole amendment read so it would be understood. It is an amendment
which on its face says, as I stated, if somebody is going to borrow
from the Federal Government, even when they are getting twice the price
for their product they should be getting, if somebody is going to
borrow from the Federal Government, they ought to pay the Federal
Government back.
Now, some will claim they can take the sugar and then the Federal
Government can sell the sugar. That is true, but if there is a
difference, the Federal Government eats the difference. There is no
reason the Federal Government should be put at that risk. They are not
put at risk for students, veterans or homeowners, so we should not be
put at that risk for sugar growers simply because they have the
capacity to protect themselves in the legislative arena better than
students, homeowners or veterans.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S8441]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is now a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was listening attentively to the Senator
describe his amendment dealing with the issue of sugar. He finished by
talking about sugar growers. Of course, the Senator understands that no
one grows sugar; they grow sugar beets, to be sure, and the beets are
processed into sugar.
The issue as presented by my colleague is an interesting issue and an
important issue. This morning in North Dakota and elsewhere in the
country, some folks got up and ate breakfast early. These were families
with a full day's work to do. They need to keep their machinery in
order, tend to their land, look over their sugar beet crops. Farmers
work pretty hard. They invest a fair amount of money into a farmstead
and try to make a living.
One of the circumstances we find in the farm programs is that there
are difficult times for people who are out there living. There are
difficult times for those trying to make a living because there is so
much uncertainty. You can plant, and in no time at all through a whole
series of things over which you have no control, you see everything
gone. Acts of nature, a whole range of circumstances can conspire to
wipe you out completely and quickly.
For that reason, the Federal Government has had a farm program. The
Federal Government has said we believe there ought to be a network of
family farmers in this country who have an opportunity to make it. So
for a whole series of farmers raising crops, we have tried to create a
safety net.
Now, within that farm program is a sugar program. The sugar program
tries to provide a safety net for those folks, particularly in my part
of the country, who raise sugar beets. As I listen to this debate, it
is interesting how this issue is described because the description is
so at odds with what the reality is.
I hear people stand on the floor of the Senate and talk about 10
cents being the world price for sugar. Well, that is not a legitimate
free-market price for sugar. That is the dump price for sugar. People
who study this issue understand that most sugar is traded country to
country through long-term contracts. Only the residual sugar produced
over that is dumped on the open market, at dump prices, dirt-cheap
prices, and then some people say that is the true market price.
Nonsense. That is not the true market price. It has nothing to do with
a true free market price. It is a dump price for residual sugar
supplies above that which is needed and above that which is traded
country to country.
In this country, we have developed a program that provides loans.
Those loans, through the Commodity Credit Corporation, cannot be made
directly to sugar cane and sugar beet growers because sugarcane and
sugar beets are not storable commodities. So the loans are made to the
raw cane farmers and the beet sugar processors. I must point out, in
North Dakota, those processors are by and large cooperatives. Those
cooperatives are owned by the growers. The growers are the farmers.
The fact is I am proud of what has happened under this sugar program.
I am proud because we have a circumstance where one part of this farm
program, at least, works well and works to provide some stability in
price to the beet growers--yes, in North Dakota and other parts of the
country.
Now, that stability has given them an opportunity to make a living
out there on the land. This is not, as some would suggest, some giant
giveaway program. It is not a program that will require people at the
grocery store to pay an extraordinarily high price for sugar. That is
not what the program is about.
This program happens to be one of the programs that I think is good
for both the producer and the consumer. It is especially good for those
consumers who care about whether producers are able to live on a family
farm, who understand that this matters to our country. I think it does
matter to our country. It is good not only for those objectives, but it
is also good for the general consumer.
You go back some years and evaluate what happened in this country
when we had a shortage of sugar, and sugar prices jumped up,
skyrocketed at the grocery store counter. Then there was a lot of
concern about what this meant to the consumer. Well, the consumer,
then, had to pay more for sugar because we had uncertain supplies,
unstable supplies.
What the sugar program has done is merge two different approaches.
One side of the approach says that we will try to provide something
that gives some price stability to those who raise beets. The other
side of the approach says that we are going to provide an advantage to
the consumer who will have price stability on the grocery store shelf.
Is that price stability higher than it might be if, during years of
world surpluses, we could have accessed the cheapest possible dump
price for sugar? Sure. But is that price lower than it would be in
times of shortage because we have a more stable capability in this
country of providing for those needs? Yes. My point is this kind of
program advantages both the producer, the family farmer being the
producer, and also the consumer.
We have fought this battle before. We have had those persons who feel
strongly about it come to the floor and say this is a program
completely without merit. They say that it is a program that ought to
be abolished, and they have tried to abolish it in a dozen different
ways.
I must admit this amendment is a crafty technique, I say to my
colleague, to try to essentially obliterate the sugar program. However,
Congress has reviewed this and Congress has said this program makes
sense. This program is not costing the taxpayers money. It is a program
that has worked well. It is a program that has achieved its objectives
of trying to provide some stability and some help for the family
farmers out there, who in my part of the country raise sugar beets. It
is a program also that has the ancillary benefits of helping the
consumers in this country with some price stability.
Let me mention one other thing. As all of us know, in this debate
there are competing forces. There is a force out there in our country--
maybe I should not name it--that uses a great deal of sugar. The
companies that make candy bars and other things use a great amount of
sugar, and they very much want to see the dump price of sugar prevail
for a while in this country as the U.S. price. I understand that. I
suppose if that were my business, I would be arguing for the same
thing. But that happens to be, in my judgment, a selfish position,
looking after only their own interests.
But there are other considerations. The Senate and the House have
gone through this and debated to try to determine where the
reconciliation is here. We have tried to discover how we do this the
right way, and is there a need to provide some stability in the price
of these commodities. Is there a reason to give a hard working family
farmer an opportunity to take advantage of that stability? The answer
has been yes. Do we want that level of stability to be something that
is so artificially high that it injures others that are involved in
other businesses? The answer to that is no. That is what the compromise
has been.
This compromise has been worked and reworked. I must say that I
compliment the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, and so many
others. Let me compliment someone who is leaving this Congress--
Congressman Kika de la Garza. This is his last year in Congress. But
those who understand the sugar program, especially in modern days, and
its genesis, understand that Kika de la Garza has played a large role
in shaping it. Republicans and Democrats have thought this through to
determine what is the best public policy here. They have, I think, come
to a reasonable position of supporting the provisions that are now in
law, provisions that I think make sense for this country.
On a broader question, one can always, it seems to me, on almost
every issue, come to the floor of the Senate and argue some kind of
global construct that persuades us that there is a cheaper price
somewhere. You can always find a price or position, in some nook or
cranny of the economy, that you can access and that somehow

[[Page S8442]]

would be beneficial for the country. I do not think that is what we are
searching for. I think what we are searching for is public policy,
especially in the area of commodities, that represents this country's
interests.
Part of this country's interests lie in trying to maintain a network
of family farms in our country. I am proud to tell you that at least
North Dakota, one of the most agricultural States, has a network of
family farms. The Red River Valley contains a network of those family
farms that are trying to raise sugar beets. They have come together in
cooperatives that process the sugar beets and have been quite
successful. I commend them for it. I only wish that our farm programs
for other commodities were as successful as this program is.
It seems to me that it ill-behooves this Congress to take a look at
what works and take that apart and stop it, as opposed to evaluating
what does not work and seeing if we cannot fix it. It really does not
serve our interests to start deciding that those things that do
function well are things that we ought to try to mess up in one way or
the other.
So I very much admire the Senator who is the author of this
amendment. We have worked together on many things, and will again, but
he is dead wrong, in my judgment, on the sugar program. It is not new
to him. He has been dead wrong on it for some long while. I know he
feels strongly about it. We have a fundamental disagreement. I do hope
that the Senate recognizes the balance that has been struck. I think it
is good for producers and good for consumers.
It is a balance that augurs for this kind of a program to try to help
family farmers in our country. I hope the Senate will, at the
appropriate time, reject the amendment offered by Senator Gregg.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon, once
again, to find myself in opposition to my colleague from New Hampshire
on an issue that we both feel very strongly about. So for the next few
moments let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that while I
disagree with him on this issue--and we very clearly disagree--we
remain good friends and working partners on a lot of other issues. I
must look at his amendment and what he has said about his amendment in
relation to the sugar program in the new farm bill and take issue with
it on an item-by-item basis, as I think is necessary. It is important
for the record, so that the facts of this issue come forward.
Mr. President, when I first came to Congress in 1980, I came from a
farming and ranching background, and for the 1980's, I remained
actively involved with my family in farming and ranching. But I must
say that my family never was involved in raising program crops. So I,
frankly, did not know a lot about farm programs. I did not know a great
deal about farm programs and program crops. It was not until I became a
Congressman, representing the First Congressional District of Idaho,
that I found it necessary to look at these programs on a program-by-
program basis, Mr. President, and try to understand what they were all
about.
My colleague from New Hampshire and I are pretty much alike. We are
fiscal conservatives. We tend to be free marketers. And so when I began
to look at the sugar program, I saw something that I had heretofore not
understood. One of the first things I found out about it was that no
check went to the farmer. The farmer, whether he be a cane grower or a
sugar beet raiser, never received a check from the Federal Government.
They received their payment from the sugar processor, who they were
contracted with to raise the beets, or to raise the cane. So there was
no, if you will, direct subsidy to the farmer, direct check to the
farmer, as is true in other program crops.
One of the reasons this program had been developed, in a way, in that
nature was because both the plant itself, the sugar beet, and the beet
itself, in storage, are quite perishable. Because it was a nonrecourse
loan program, it would not have been wise for the Federal Government,
in this instance, to produce a loan when there was no collateral. And
so as a method of even marketing into the system, it became the sugar
processor who was the individual who took loans out from the Government
inside a Government program, a sugar program, and they used, as
collateral, refined sugar. So there was no direct payment to the
farmer.
So the Senator from New Hampshire is wrong today. We will not hear a
story about the plight of the small farmer. The small farmer, in this
case the sugar beet raiser, whether it is in North Dakota or whether it
is in Idaho, does not receive a check from the Federal Government. They
receive a stable price for their product from a refiner that is engaged
in a nonrecourse loan program with the Federal Government, which allows
that refiner to market sugar into the market in a stable way.
So I am sorry that I will disappoint my colleague from New Hampshire.
No story about the plight of the small farmer. Although I am very much
concerned about the small farmer, I will tell my colleague from New
Hampshire, with the hundreds of thousands of acres of sugar beets in
Idaho, it is a good and profitable crop. One of the reasons it is is
not because they get a check from the Government, but because the
industry, through the program, is allowed to develop a loan
relationship with the Federal Government, which creates stability in
the marketplace. Therefore, it affords a stable price for the crop, and
that creates stability at the farm itself. That is a point that I think
is very important to remember.
So, in essence, the amendment that my colleague from New Hampshire is
offering today, which is a cap, if you will--or it says loans are
limited to those under $10 million--there is not a refiner in the
market that grosses less than $10 million. So the amendment, for all
intents and purposes, destroys the sugar program as we know it.
The second point, this is not just a refinement of the existing
program. This is a killer amendment of a program that we spent over 12
months negotiating about with the industry and the growers
associations. The reason we did that is because I, along with my
colleague from New Hampshire, said it was time to reform the farm bill
and get Government out of agriculture as much as we could. As a result
of that, we put major reforms into the sugar program.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a moment on that point?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator talked about family farmers. I want to try to
understand the point he made.
The point, as I understand it, is not that this does not help family
farmers. This ultimately does help family farmers. But it helps family
farmers through price stability--not a Government check. I think that
is the point the Senator from Idaho was making.
The reason I asked the question is that I was making the point that
this matters to a lot of family farmers. It matters because if you
destroy this program you destroy their price stability; and, frankly, a
lot of them will not be farming anymore. But this is not a Government
check to those farmers. As the Senator from Idaho properly said, it
helps the processors to provide price stability for farmers, which is
exactly what makes this a successful program and one that does not cost
the taxpayers' money.
I appreciate very much the Senator yielding.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, so the point I think that my colleague and
I are trying to make here is that, if there is a role for Government in
agriculture--I think there is one, and I think it ought to be a very
limited one--I see it in one of two or three areas. That is not to
directly prop up or to subsidize a producer who has to produce to a
market but allowing Government to help facilitate at no cost to the
taxpayers anomalies within a market environment that only the
Government can maybe help in because of their scope and their size, or
in an instance where there is direct competition from foreign markets
in which cheap product is produced either because of ``near slave
labor'' or because of subsidized Government programs in other producing
areas of the world than the necessity of a relationship there where our
Government can facilitate without it being a cost to the taxpayer.

[[Page S8443]]

In all of those instances the sugar program meets those tests. In the
area of trade, where you have real political consideration and
political powers vying against each other that distort the marketplace,
I believe our Government can be a facilitator to production
agriculture, and it works in this instance. And it works so to create
stability in the marketplace. When you create stability in the
marketplace you benefit the small farmer producer, and you do in real
terms because you do not have the kind of gyrations in the market where
one year wheat is worth a great deal of money and the next year you
ought to plow it under because it is worth no money. That is the kind
of instability we saw in the sugar pProgram in the late 1970's and the
early 1980's.
Those are some of the issues and items that I learned, Mr. President,
when I got here as a freshman Congressman and I knew very little about
sugar. I also learned something else: That when we began to make
reforms in the program starting back in 1980 when we found out that we
could not operate under the kind of program we were living under, and
because of the boom and bust in the marketplace, with the tremendous
influence of dumping raw cheap foreign sugar on our market we came back
to a Government program, or at least a program where the Government
became a participant to facilitate.
When we did that we said something very important. We said that this
ought not be a subsidy--that it ought to be no net cost to the
taxpayer.
Since 1980 my colleague from New Hampshire knows as well as I do that
this has been a no net cost to the taxpayer because that is what the
law says. And in that context, while I was listening to my colleague a
few moments ago, I became frustrated when he began to insinuate that
this was costing the taxpayer money--or that in fact it was costing the
Government money--that is a nonrecourse loan if defaulted upon costs
the taxpayer money.
Two years ago, when we did have some default because the loans were
collateralized on refined sugar, the Government took the sugar, sold
it, and made money--no net cost. Technically inside the law my
colleague from New Hampshire, the Senator from New Hampshire, is right.
From a technical point of view he is absolutely right--that, if the
price of refined sugar had dropped dramatically, there might be a loss.
But the law says no net cost to taxpayers.
As a result of that we have put the loan rate at a rate to cover
those margins, and it has no cost. He used an example of the veterans;
the homeowner. I must tell my colleague from New Hampshire, my Senator
friend, that he knows this--that when the Government loans money on a
house they have the house as collateral. And if the person who borrows
walks away from the house--and that happens--the Government has the
house and they sell the house. They have the sugar and they sell the
sugar.
He used student loans. Student loans are the only area where
Government loans do not have collateral. Many students have walked away
from their loans and the taxpayers had to eat them. That was
increasingly so until the Senator from New Hampshire and I came in the
early 1980's and said, ``No. You can't do that kind of thing anymore.
If we are going to loan money to students they have to pay it back.''
That became an increasing prerequisite of student loans throughout the
1980's and into the 1990's as we increasingly provided more money in
the student loan program.
So if you loan money to a GI, in many instances on education, that is
an outright gift. If you loan money to a student, you hope they pay it
back. They are obligated to pay it back. If they declare bankruptcy and
walk away from it, even though we put a no-bankruptcy clause in, some
of them do not. Most of them do, thank goodness. But if the Federal
Government borrows money on a house and the person walks away from the
house, they can follow the person legally through the channels; and, if
the person does not have any money, the Government has the house. That
is the reality. We know those things.
In a nonrecourse loan to the refiner the Government has the sugar.
The example of default cannot be painted to be dramatic because it
hardly exists. It rarely exists. Over the last 2 years it has existed,
and, when it did, the Government took the refined sugar, sold it, and
made a little money above and beyond their expenses.
Mr. President, if the Government can operate a program like that that
creates stability in the marketplace, that keeps thousands of farmers
producing, that disallows the dumping of cheap sugar in our market and
does so in a way that is of no net cost to the taxpayer, I would say
that is probably a pretty good program. Maybe that is the way
Government ought to work in this instance. It creates the kind of
stability we want.
The amendment that the Senator from New Hampshire offers imposes an
eligibility test for participation in what is now a new sugar program.
For over 12 months we worked at defining a new program, and we put it
in a 7-year farm bill. Growers began to plant to that farm bill this
spring.
I would have hoped that my colleague would have accepted those
reforms. But I understand that he does not. He wants the program
eliminated. That is his choice to offer on the floor his amendment, and
clearly he does that because nobody in my opinion can largely agree
with his $10 million revenue threshold to establish it. If a refined
cane miller or a sugar beet processor has annual revenue which exceeds
$10 million they are not eligible for the program as written in the
farm bill. Currently all U.S. raw cane millers and sugar beet
processors have annual revenues above $10 million. Thus, no domestic
produced sugar would be eligible for current loan programs if this
amendment were enacted. This amendment will invalidate and render
useless the hard-fought reform that I have just mentioned that won on
this floor of the Senate by 61 to 35 vote.
In the loan program, while I think I have discussed that in a
reasonably thorough way, Mr. President, USDA cannot make loans directly
to the sugarcane or the sugar beet grower, as I have mentioned.
The reason is that raw sugarcane and beets are perishable, and
although my colleague did not specifically speak to the
collateralization of the loan, the loans are collateralized by refined
sugar, and that is why the Government has not lost any money on this,
not only by actual practice but by the law itself.
The loan rate for raw cane sugar is 18 cents under the new program
and has been frozen at that level since 1985. The farm bill makes that
freeze level a permanent one. The current loan rate is well below the
domestic market price of 22 cents. So you have that cushion of
protection between the 18 cents and the 22 cents.
USDA loans on sugar have consistently been repaid, as I have
mentioned, with interest. It sounds as if our Government, in this
instance, was a pretty good banker. The sugar program has been operated
at no net cost. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers continue to buy sugar at a
price some 28 percent below the average price in the rest of the
world's developed countries.
For just a moment, Mr. President, let me speak briefly again about
the nonrecourse versus recourse loans that go to the heart of the
amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. Currently, all sugar
loans, along with wheat, cotton, rice, and corn, are nonrecourse loans.
This means that the only way to collect repayment of the loan is to
assume the collateral. Rather than collect massive stocks, USDA
operates the program so that there are no loan forfeitures or cost to
the Government.
What the opponents suggest is that this system be changed to
basically a recourse loan program and the $10 million threshold. Under
this system, the Government could use any means necessary to collect
the value of a loan. No other commodity has a recourse loan.
Those are some facts that I think are extremely important as we deal
with this issue.
Mr. President, because we are now just at the beginning of a new farm
bill, and while all of us spent nearly 2 years crafting this document--
and the Senator from New Hampshire was directly involved in trying to
change it with amendments in this Chamber, which was certainly his
right and his prerogative, so he and I and everyone

[[Page S8444]]

else have had a substantial part in shaping the new farm policy, but we
did it. We put it in effect for 7 years. As a result of that, scores of
farm organizations around the country have said now it is time to leave
it alone and let it work for a while under the promises that the
Government collectively made would be a part of the program.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep Industry, the
Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, the Soybean Association,
National Association of Wheat Growers and Barley Growers, the National
Corn Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Council of
Farm Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, the National Milk
Producers Federation, the National Peanut Growers Association, the
National Pork Producers Association, and the National Sugar Farmers and
Processors, all of them have basically said now that you have crafted a
farm bill, we urge you to stay with it because this is something you
just do not change overnight. Certainly in my State of Idaho, the
millions and millions of dollars of investment it takes to farm and to
produce means that you do not quickly change the program if you change
it overnight. Of course, the Congress has the right to do that. But we
understand the importance of making sure that the program is stable.
I hope I have portrayed my opinion of the effects of this amendment
by the Senator from New Hampshire. If not, I am sure he will correct
me, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong. But I think it is
important to remember that this is a program that since the early
1980's we have refined and shaped and reshaped so that we create
stability in the market; that we offer a supply of sugar which is
substantially less expensive than sugar and sweetener around the world;
that we are in compliance with GATT, and as we move toward that, one of
the things which is clearly understandable is that our level of
participation in the program reduces as other governments around the
world subsidize, sugar levels reduce because of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade. All of that is part of how our Government has
worked, and I believe properly so, under the direction of the Congress
and under the new farm bill that we have before us.
So I hope that my colleagues in reviewing this amendment will reject
it. I certainly do not plan to second degree it, and I do not know of
anyone else who does. It is not my intention to want to put cute words
around it, to try to hide the impact. I believe this program is strong
enough to stand on its own, as it has in the past, as it did by a 61 to
35 vote several months ago on the floor of the Senate. And I hope that
Senators, in reviewing this, could reject it out of hand and allow the
program, which we have effectively refined and developed, to operate
for a period of time to see if we get the savings.
Let me also conclude by saying that one of the things which is very
important to remember--and I am not sure whether the Senator's
amendment would therefore forfeit this figure--one of the results of
the program and the no net cost to the taxpayer is the assessments that
are generated through the new program that will produce about $300
million in deficit reduction.
Now, if the Senator is still going to say let us keep the assessments
but let us kill the program, then, in essence, he has created a new tax
on producers, because we not only eliminated marketing allotments, we
implemented a 1-cent penalty effectively lowering loan rates and we
have an assessment that will generate about $300 million in deficit
reduction to the Treasury over the life of the program of 7 years. As a
result of that, we think we have put together a positive reform package
not only for the American taxpayer, but, in this instance, for the
producer-processor to create a stable market for the commodity that
they produce.
I yield back the time.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I certainly appreciate the eloquence and the
aggressiveness and obviously the effectiveness of the Senator from
North Dakota and the Senator from Idaho in defending the sugar program
as it impacts their sugar beet growers who, in most instances, I
suspect--I suspect in all instances--are very hard working, farm
community votes. However, the sugar program itself is structured in a
way that it benefits a lot of major corporate farm activity, and that
farm activity, as I mentioned before, is extraordinarily expensive to
the American consumer in an unfair and unjust and unmarket-oriented
way.
The argument on the other side appears to have fallen into a few
categories. Let me try to respond to them in some sort of argument.
The first argument is that this amendment would eliminate the program
because any processor doing more than $10 million in business would be
out of the program. No, that is not true. I think that is simply not
true. It would say that any processor who generates more than $10
million in annual sales would have to pay their loans back--just like a
student, just like a veteran, just like a homeowner.
Now, there was some representation that we do not collect veterans'
loans and maybe they are an outright gift. I do not think so. I think
most veterans pay back their loans, but if they are not paid back, the
Federal Government has the right to go after them individually. The
same thing of a student. If a student does not pay back his or her
loan--it happens a lot, unfortunately--the Federal Government has the
right to collect that. Of course, in the homeowner's situation, that is
a collateralized event. The Federal Government takes the home, sells
the home, but if there is a deficiency, in other words, if there is a
difference between what that home is sold for under foreclosure and
what the note is paid out for and the note exceeded the foreclosure
price of the loan, the individual remains personally responsible for
that amount.
What we are suggesting is that a $10 million processor as a
consortium, as a co-op or as a manufacturing cooperation, the $10
million processor should have to be liable also just like the student
is, just like the veteran is, just like the homeowner is for that loan.
So the program is still very much available. It is available under
approximately the same terms and conditions relative to default and
recovery that a loan to a student is, that a loan to a veteran is, and
that a loan to a HUD recipient of a home ownership loan is. You have to
pay the loan. You have to pay back the Government. That is all we are
asking.

So the program is very much vibrant and alive. To reflect the fact
that there is a sort of inherent contradiction in this debate that I
hear from the other side, the position of the other side, on the one
hand, they are saying this proposal, which is to allow people to borrow
the money but to have to pay it back, versus borrow the money and then
if they decide they do not want to pay it back they can just turn over
their sugar to the Government--that this proposal is going to have a
disastrous, debilitating, totally scorched earth effect on the farm
program; and then I heard that nobody has ever defaulted, or if there
has been a default they sold the collateral for more than the loan was
worth.
So why is this such a terrible event? Why is it such a terrible event
to make it a matter of public policy that people who borrow money from
the Federal Government should pay it back? I guess it is a terrible
event because it happens to be perceived, I think, as a threat to the
sugar growers and the sugar processors. They maybe see it as a camel's-
nose-under-the-tent approach to the issue of their $1.4 billion subsidy
which they are taking the American consumer to the cleaners with.
But, as a practical matter, the debate on the other side of this
issue has defended the position I have proposed in this amendment,
because they have stated accurately that there have been no defaults
that would have created recourse beyond the collateral, and, therefore,
why should it matter to the industry if they find themselves subject to
recourse loans? Especially when you have an Agriculture Department that
is controlling the importation of sugar so it keeps the price of sugar
4 to 5 cents above what the loan price is? I mean, really. It is like
going into a blackjack game and saying, ``You have to deal me both an
ace and a jack. If you do not deal me the ace and the jack, I am not
going to play.''
In this case we are going to give them the ace and the jack, I guess.
But

[[Page S8445]]

it makes no sense, that if they should, by some strange coincidence end
up losing, they should not at least expect the Federal Government
should be paid back. It is hard to believe there is a scenario where
under the present scenario they would lose. As long as the Department
of Agriculture is going to keep the price 4 cents or 5 cents above the
loan price, how do you ever end up with the collateral being less than
the loan? It is pretty hard to see that fact pattern occurring.
But I am told this amendment devastates the program. How does it
devastate a program when the defense of the opposition has been that
there has never been a default, and when the numbers, on their face,
speak for themselves that if there were a default, there would not be
any recourse?
No, I do not think it devastates the program. It does not affect the
program at all. That was my point when I first started this. I said,
``Gee, I would really like to do something about this program but I
know I cannot win. But let us at least get ourselves on some sort of
even keel relative to the American taxpayer and relative to fairness.
If we are going to say to the homeowner and the student and the veteran
you have to pay your loans back, let us say to the processor you have
to pay your loan back, too. That is the purpose of this.''
So I do not think there is any substance to that argument. I think
the substance of it was undermined by the presentation of the defense.
To the effect there was a substantive point made in the opposition, it
went to the issue of this price stability, which was specifically
stated by the Senator from North Dakota and clearly implied and alluded
to by the Senator from Idaho.
Essentially, the theme of that position was that if you do not have
price stability in sugar, then you are going to have up-and-down years,
you are going to have years when the price will go down, when there is
dumping, and years when the price will go up. So the idea is to have 23
cents or 22 cents all the time for sugar, even though the world market
price is 13 cents. Granted that may be a dump price, for all I know. It
may not be, but it could be a dumped price. But there is clearly a heck
of a lot of difference, there is a big difference between 22 cents, 23
cents, and 13 cents. So somewhere in there is the real price of sugar
one presumes, between those two numbers. It is pretty obvious the
American consumer is paying a lot more than the real price, if the
world dump market is 13 cents.
So, if that is the case, if the purpose here is to maintain a stable
price for sugar, if that is the real gravamen of the argument, and that
price always has to be 23 cents or 22 cents--and why is that number
picked? That number is picked because the loan price is 18 cents and
they do not want anybody defaulting on their loan. If we apply that
logic to all the commodities made in this country: All right, let us
see, now. A couple of weeks ago my son bought a MacIntosh computer. I
bought it for him for his birthday. The price of that computer, as I
recall, was somewhere in the $1,500 range. It was a pretty expensive
item, but it was for schooling. It seemed like a good investment. His
sisters can use it.
All prices of all computers should be $1,500--right? The theory of
the sugar program is the price for a commodity should be the same price
at all times, because the prices might go up and the prices might go
down; if you want to maintain stability--we have a lot more people
working in the old computer industry in this world, in the Apple
computer industry, I suspect, than make sugar. I bet there are probably
more people that work for Apple Computer than produce sugar.
What has happened to Apple computers because they have not had a
Department of Agriculture fixing the price of that product? The prices
went down. I found out a few days ago I could have bought the same
computer I bought a few months ago for $400 less, because there is
something called a price war going on in the computer industry. And,
worse than that, for the folks at Apple, they are in serious trouble.
They have had to lay off thousands of people, because their product was
not able to maintain the employment. And the prices of computers and
other computers that have been brought on the market that have made
that Apple computer, which is a heck of a good computer, I think--
especially the software in it--be not as competitive with whatever the
appropriate other computer that is competing: Dell, AST, Gateway,
Digital. Digital is a great computer, by the way--made in New
Hampshire.
The point here, of course, is: It is called a marketplace. It is
called America. It is called a market system. It is called capitalism.
It is called ``what made this country great.'' It is called
competition, worldwide, sometimes.
Take another little commodity called cars. Shall we fix all
Chevrolets at the price of Chevrolets sold in the year 1979 or 1985? We
could, I suppose. Then we would not allow the Japanese to import to
compete.
I think we went through that, did we not? That is why the Big Three
had such a tough time, because their quality went down because they did
not have the competition. Prices stayed up. Then, when they did get the
competition, it took them a while to turn around. Of course, with
American know-how they did it pretty quickly, didn't they?
Now you have the most viable and energized car producers in the
world, and they are American again. For a while, of course, we had a
huge Japanese threat to our industry, but we responded.
Are we to say that the sugar growers in this country would not be
able to compete? I do not know, I guess that is exactly what we are
saying in this plan. But, essentially, this concept of stable prices,
which has been alluded to specifically by the Senator from North Dakota
and clearly highlighted or addressed by the Senator from Idaho, is
another term for non-market-place economy. It is another term for price
fixing. Price fixing does not benefit the consumer. It does not benefit
the marketplace. It benefits that small group of people who are able to
benefit from the fixed price which, in this case, happens to be a very
small group of sugar growers, and it is extremely expensive to the
American economy.
There was a statement that there are no tax dollars at risk; the
taxpayers pay nothing. Well, if you say that the dollar that a taxpayer
pays in taxes and a dollar a taxpayer takes out of his wallet to pay
for sugar does not come out of the same wallet, then I guess taxpayers
are not impacted. If the taxpayers are some mythical beings out there
who don't go to the marketplace and buy food then, yes, there is no
impact on the taxpayers.
But if the taxpayers happen to be real, live Americans who go down to
the grocery store and buy food with those dollars that are left over
after the Government takes their money for taxes, well, then it does
impact them quite a bit, because they are paying somewhere around twice
the going rate for the price of sugar. They are paying $1.4 billion a
year more to buy that sugar than they should have to. But this
amendment does not address that issue, that outrageous issue which I
would love to address. Unfortunately, I cannot get the votes to address
it. But this amendment does not address that issue. This amendment
addresses the fact that these are loans that do not get paid back if
they go bad.
Granted, it may never happen. It may never happen that the
Agriculture Department is able to manipulate, through controlling
imports, something that comes close enough to the loan price so that
there never is a loan that goes bad. But there ought to be a statement
of policy, at least, that this Congress expects the $10 million
processor to at least be as liable for his or her loans or its loans
from the Federal Government as we expect the struggling student, the
veteran and the homeowner.
There were a couple of ancillary issues that were raised that I think
need to be addressed. Maybe I already addressed them. I was even more
thorough than I thought in my statement, so I yield back the remainder
of my time.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me compliment those who participated
in this debate for the efforts they made to fully acquaint the Senate
with the issue that is before us with the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S8446]]

My reaction to it at this point is that this is an issue that has
been before the Senate, was before the Senate, was fully debated when
we were undertaking to write the new farm bill, which contained a lot
of market transition reforms, included reforms in the Sugar Program and
many others, and this issue has been resolved, or at least a bill was
passed by the House and Senate, a conference occurred, a conference
report was written.
This is the conference report that was compiled by conferees on the
part of the House and the Senate, almost 500 pages in length, devoted
to farm programs and the role of the Federal Government and the private
sector in trying to make available to Americans abundant supplies of
reasonably priced foods and commodities.
The President signed the bill, and this is the law. The bill before
the Senate today simply funds the activities of the Department of
Agriculture and related agencies. It doesn't seek to address suggested
changes in agriculture or farm policy, as such, but simply to undertake
to allocate to this Department the funds it needs to carry out its
responsibilities as defined by the law.
So this is a proposal by the Senator from New Hampshire to change the
law and, therefore, it seems to me ought not to be adopted by the
Senate. It is very technical, obviously. I was reading section 156 in
the conference report that deals with the Sugar Program, and it talks
about the nonrecourse and the recourse loans that are a part of that
program, and it is very, very technical.
I was thinking, how is a Senator who is not a member of the
Agriculture Committee, has not been a party to the hearings and
discussions about how this is going to work as a practical matter, how
is he going to be able to decide, how is she going to be able to decide
whether this is an amendment they want to vote for or against.
These are arguments that have been made on both sides of the issues.
I compliment the Senators involved. I think the only thing we can be
sure of is we will vote on this. We will vote on this amendment. The
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the vote will occur in due course
of proceeding on this bill. It will not occur today. But under the
order entered for the consideration of the bill today, it would be put
over and a vote will occur tomorrow.
I am going to have to come down on the side of the Senator from Idaho
and the Senator from North Dakota in arguing that the amendment be
voted down. I hope Senators will vote against the amendment, with due
respect to my very good friend from New Hampshire, whom I admire
greatly.
Mr. President, we are prepared to receive other amendments, or any
further debate on this amendment would be in order if Senators care to
debate the amendment.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 4968

(Purpose: To restore funding for the Agriculture Research Service at
the level approved by the House of Representatives)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 4968.
On page 10, line 18, strike ``$721,758,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$702,831,000''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the funding
level for the Agriculture Research Service at the House-passed amount.
Simply, if the amendment is adopted, we will save $18,927,000, which
represents a 3-percent cut from the Senate level.
No Agriculture Research Service programs will be put in jeopardy. No
dire outcome will result. Mr. President, it is a very simple amendment.
While the Senate does not and should not function as a rubber stamp of
House action, the other body was entirely correct when it funded the
Agriculture Research Service at $702,831,000.
Mr. President, in the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill,
a lot of the unnecessary spending is in the Agriculture Research
Service program. Certainly, there is a legitimate need for agricultural
research. We all agree on that point.
Let me emphasize, voting for this amendment will not contradict that
point. Voting for the amendment does affirm our belief that we must
scale back our spending in a responsible manner.
The House funded the Agriculture Research Service at a very
reasonable level at $702 million. Again, I want to note that this is a
3-percent cut from the Senate level. I believe that we could cut this
nearly $1 billion program by 3 percent.
Mr. President, there is other language in the bill and in the
accompanying committee report that concerns me. I would like to raise
some of those issues at this time. On page 51 of the bill, the House
had language that stated no funding made available under this title
shall be used for new studies and evaluations. I applaud the House for
inserting this prohibition in the bill. Unfortunately, the Senate
struck the House provision and inserted instead the $6 million cap on
studies and evaluations. Unfortunately, many of these studies are not
necessary or could be privately funded. I hope that when the bill is
conferenced, the Senate will recede to the House on this matter.
The committee report continues to recommend funding for a wide
variety of specific industry areas. I believe that such earmarking is
detrimental to the agriculture industry as a whole because it
encourages funding to go to those industries with the best lobbyists or
those favored by the members of the committee. All research grants
should be based on national priority and competitive bid.
As an example, I would like to comment briefly on the shrimp
aquaculture research provisions contained on page 39 of the committee
report. The committee recommended a $300,000 increase in Federal
funding for shrimp research. Mr. President, the U.S. shrimp industry is
a profitable, multibillion-dollar-a-year industry. While it is true
that the Asian shrimp industry is much larger than the U.S. shrimp
industry--I understand that some desire that we should have an American
source of shrimp--it seems that increased Government funding of the
shrimp industry is not needed at this time.
Mr. President, my staff met with shrimp industry representatives who
explained their ongoing concern with foreign diseases infiltrating our
national shrimp farms. I share their concern. However, since the shrimp
industry is a profitable industry, and since the Federal Government
already spends over $3 million a year on shrimp aquaculture research,
this new financial need should be met by the shrimp industry itself.
Again, I hope when the bill goes to conference that the House demand
its language on this matter and that Federal involvement with the
shrimp industry be kept at a minimum.
I also want to express my concern that the Senate added language to
the bill on page 33 that funds the National Natural Resources
Conservation Foundation at no more than $250,000. This sounds very
good, but it raises many questions. First, according to the act which
established the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation,
Public Law 104-127, the foundation is ``a charitable and non profit
corporation * * * [and] is not an agency or instrumentality of the
United States.''
The law also notes the numerous duties of the foundation, many of
which I agree with. But I want to note that the last of the duties
proscribed in the law for this private corporation is ``[to] raise
private funds to promote the purposes of the foundation.'' The law
states this is a private organization that should raise funds and
promote certain agricultural activities. I think we should let the
corporation follow that law.
Mr. President, isn't the concept of a private corporation that it is
private, therefore, not funded by the Federal Government? In general,
private corporations should not be funded with Federal dollars. I hope
the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture will not use any
appropriated money to fund this organization. While there is a
legitimate role for some Federal dollars to be used by private
corporations for certain select activities that are necessary but which
might otherwise go

[[Page S8447]]

unfunded, this is not one of those exceptions.
Again, Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It represents a 3-
percent cut in the Agriculture Research Service program and restores
the House of Representatives-passed funding level for the program. I
hope the Senate will adopt the amendment.
Mr. President, I have read the report language of the bill rather
carefully. There are many worthwhile and worthy causes. Some of them I
do not quite understand. Some of them are somewhat unusual, to say the
least. Grape research, hops, insect rearing, goat grass control,
nutrition intervention projects, cotton value-added/quality research,
apple research, alfalfa research, corn germplasm research.
Mr. President, all these, I am sure, are worthwhile, but many
Americans who are facing cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in
food stamps, Social Security being in financial jeopardy would ask the
question--and I think it is a legitimate one--should the taxpayers be
paying for a fish farming experiment laboratory? Should the taxpayers
be paying for cotton value-added/quality research? Should the taxpayers
be paying for corn germplasm research? Apple research? Alfalfa
research? Funding children's hospitals?
Mr. President, the question, I think, is a legitimate one. I have no
information that the apple industry in America is in such dire straits
that they need to have Federal dollars spent on apple research. I
wonder if the apple industry in America could pay for apple research. I
have no information that the Arkansas children's hospital is in such
bad shape that it needs to have an additional $425,000 of taxpayers'
dollars.
Bee research. I did not know that the Hayden Bee ARS Laboratory in
Tucson, AZ, required earmarked funding. Mr. President, I did not know
that the wheat industry was in such bad shape that it needed an
additional $450,000 above the 1996 level for the ARS Pacific Northwest
Club Wheat Breeding Program.
What I am saying, Mr. President, is it all gets down to the question
about the role of government in our society. I was under the distinct
impression that, at least on this side of the aisle, Members felt that
the role of government in our society should be prioritized to provide
for national security and for those in our society who are unable to
take care of themselves who need our help, and certainly otherwise
important programs.
I do not understand the logic behind funding with taxpayers' dollars
industry, whether it be fish farms or grapes or cotton or wheat or
bees, when those industries are not only not in need, but according to
the information I have received that agriculture is one of the
healthiest industries in America.
So I hope that we will make a modest cut and restore the House level
of funding. Mr. President, I have very few illusions as to the
prospects of this amendment, but I would suggest that sooner or later
the American people will continue to question and question severely
this kind of funding. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me respond to the Senator from
Arizona by saying that when we looked at the President's budget request
for funding of the Agriculture Research Service activities, we, too,
thought that the request was too high. Our careful evaluation of the
needs for research done by the Agriculture Research Service resulted in
our reducing the amount available for this activity by $7 million. So
the proposal that is before the Senate is $7 million less than
requested by the administration.
Let me also point out one other thing. I noticed the Senator's
amendment would cut $18 million from the Senate-recommended figure, $18
million from what the Senate recommended. We are already $7 million
below the President's request. He does that, he says, to bring our
number to the point where we would agree with the House on the level of
funding for these activities. The House number is $702 million in
total. The bad part is, if you look at the House numbers individually
in all the items in the bill that the House says should be funded, it
adds up to $710 million more or less.
Draw the bottom line and put $702 million. He wants us to join that
hocus-pocus and suggest we want individual projects funded up and down
the line in their bill, and if you add them all up it is $710 million,
round numbers, but they draw the bottom line and put $702. I will not
submit a bill to the floor of this Senate and do that and say I am
cutting spending more than we really are recommending when you look at
the individual items.
What they are forcing the Department of Agriculture to do, if the
Senate goes along with that, we are misrepresenting to the general
public, we are misrepresenting to the Department of Agriculture, what
our recommendation is. We are forcing the Department to pick out $7
million in cuts and impose them somewhere, and disavowing any
connection with it. We are disavowing paternity with a $7 million cut.
If we are going to impose the cut to $702 million, identify where the
cuts are going to be. If you are going to cut the Arkansas Research
Program that the Department of Agriculture runs, you have to spell it
out. If you are going to cut an Arizona cotton research activity that
is a substantial investment of dollars in a new facility, say it. Say
you are cutting western cotton research, and point out it is done in
Arizona. Just to simply say we are spending more than we need but not
say how, where, when, or to what extent, that is not right.
Now, after the Senator completed his proposal where he makes this $18
million cut, he then talked about other parts of the bill he found
obnoxious that do not have anything to do with Agricultural Research
Service funding. If there are programs that should not be funded, I
suggest we ought to spell it out. Amendments ought to target those
projects. If that is what the complaint is, offer an amendment that
does that. But to offer an across-the-board cut which if we passed
would force the Department to make the decisions, we would not have any
responsibility for doing that. That is irresponsibility. That is not
accountability.
I sympathize with the Senator's proposal that we make sure the
dollars that are invested in research are, No. 1, needed, serve some
public interest, are reviewed carefully. I can assure the Senate and I
can assure the Senator from Arizona that will be undertaken here.
He did specifically mention shrimp research for shrimp farming
operations and how they were money-making enterprises and they did not
need the research dollars. I convened a hearing just on that issue last
year to determine what some of the problems were in aquaculture in
fresh water, some salt water shrimp and other aquaculture activities. I
found out there was an epidemic of exotic viruses that have attacked
the shrimp in those operations and we were, in exchange, importing huge
quantities of shrimp from China and other foreign sources because we
could not meet the supplies needed here for wholesome, safe shrimp and
other seafood. This was a growing industry. It was one that had a lot
of promise but it was about to be wiped out. These funds that are made
available are made available on condition that the industry come up
with its own money to help match the dollars that are put up by the
Government to get to the bottom of this problem, and it is a problem.
Here is the hearing. This is a hearing record. This is not something
the industry just came in and tried to push over on us. I am convinced
the dollars that are made available for that activity are needed. The
purpose, to provide high health and genetically improved stocks, to
control disease agents, to enhance environmental protection, and to
develop animal husbandry methods. All of this is needed if we are going
to save this industry from a doom, a doom that will cause us to have to
rely on foreign sources of these products. We already do. But we will
be completely reliant on them if we are not careful, if we let this
virus problem spread, if do not figure out how to stop it. That is
needed. I will stand behind it. The record supports the need. I hope
the Senate will reject the amendment.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

[[Page S8448]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Senator's amendment
number 4959.

Amendment No. 4969 to Amendment No. 4959

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to make loans to large
processors of sugarcane and sugar beets unless the loans require the
processors to repay the full amount of the loans, plus interest.)

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

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 4969 to amendment No. 4959.

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

Strike all after the word ``SEC.'' and insert the
following:

REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN SUGAR LOANS.

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act may be used to make a loan to a processor of
sugarcane or sugar beets, or both, who has an annual revenue
that exceeds $15 million, unless the terms of the loan
require the processor to repay the full amount of the loan,
plus interest.

Mr. GREGG. This is the same as the underlying amendment, but it
changes the amount that is required of processors to have recourse on
from a $10 million threshold to a $15 million threshold. After that, it
is a more lenient amendment than the first, if we presume we are
requiring people to pay back loans.
It does not, I think, aggravate the situation and should not from the
standpoint of my colleagues who feel differently on this amendment than
I do. I offer it to protect my position in the batting order here.
I make one additional point. There was a point made on the other
side, and this is, really, ancillary to the overall debate but needs to
be responded to. There was a point made on the other side that the
Sugar Program as presently structured actually causes a net ``infloat''
of the Treasury because this is an assessment process. However, if you
take into effect in the calculation the cost to the Federal Government
of having to buy sugar for products which it uses and food stamps and
military feeding and child nutrition at the inflated rate we must pay
because the Federal Government is a fairly large consumer--also as I
mentioned, and I suspect ad nauseam for my colleagues, the price here
is dramatically more than the price the market would be were this a
market-oriented program versus price-control program.
GAO has advised us the cost to the Federal Government, by letter of
July 18, the cost in 1994 to the Federal Government for purchasing
products which had inflated prices due to the cost of sugar was
approximately $90 million annually. So that exceeds, by, I think, a
factor of three, what is alleged to be the positive cash flow of this
program to the Treasury.
Let me read the operative sentences:

In 1994, total expenditures on food were approximately $647
billion. Of this amount, approximately $42 billion was
government expenditures for food purchases and cash transfers
to consumers for food purchases. This represented 6.5 percent
of all domestic food expenditures. Applying this to the $1.4
billion cost of the sugar program, we estimate that the
government's additional cost of purchasing food and providing
the level of food assistance it delivered in 1994, was
approximately $90 million.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

General Accounting Office,

Washington, DC, July 18, 1995.
Congressional Requesters,
In our report entitled Sugar Program; Changing Domestic and
International Conditions Require Program Changes (GAO/RCED-
93-84, Apr. 16, 1993), we estimated that the U.S. sugar
program costs sweetener users an average of $1.4 billion
annually. In this context, you requested that we estimate how
much the sugar program increases the government's costs of
purchasing food and conducting food assistance programs.
While it is impossible to precisely quantify the direct
costs of the sugar program to the government, we have
approximated the government's additional costs, based on its
share of total domestic food expenditures. In 1994, total
expenditures on food were approximately $647 billion. Of this
amount, approximately $42 billion was government expenditures
for food purchases and cash transfers to consumers for food
purchases. This represented 6.5 percent of all domestic food
expenditures. Applying this percentage to the $1.4 billion
cost of the sugar program, we estimate that the government's
additional cost of purchasing food and providing the level of
food assistance it delivered in 1994, was approximately $90
million.
Table I provides more detail, by program, on the
government's expenditures on direct food purchases and cash
assistance for consumer food purchases. These calculations
are approximated, using the best available information.

TABLE I.--GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON FOOD PURCHASES AND CASH PAYMENTS FOR
CONSUMER FOOD PURCHASES, 1994
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Stamps.................................................. $22,880
Child nutrition food subsidies \1\........................... 6,262
Direct distribution to families.............................. 46
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)................ 142
The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC).............................................. 2,396
Commodity supplemental....................................... 84
Direct distribution to institutions.......................... 1,561
Direct distribution to the elderly........................... 177
Correctional institutions \1\................................ 1,564
Hospitals \1\................................................ 1,017
Nursing homes \1\............................................ 2,038
Other homes and schools \1\.................................. 266
Military food purchases \2\.................................. 1,055
Military subsistence payments \3\............................ 2,401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA Economic Research Service.
Note: Data are for calendar year 1994, except where otherwise noted.
\1\ Includes federal, state, and local spending.
\2\ Fiscal year 1994 data provided by the Defense Logistics Agency.
\3\ Fiscal year data provided by each of the Armed Services.

While raising the costs of purchasing food and conducting
food assistance programs, the sugar program generates some
revenues through marketing assessments on sugar. On average,
these marketing assessments total $30 million annually. If
the sugar program did not exist, these assessments would not
be collected.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at
(202) 512-5138 or Bob Robertson at (202) 512-9894.

Robert C. Robertson

(For John W. Harman, Director, Food,
and Agriculture Issues.)

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment
in the second degree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
They yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4968

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Arizona
is arbitrary at best and capricious at worst.
The year 1995 culminated a series of cuts in agricultural research
over a period of years. In other words, agricultural research funds had
been cut every year for several years. In 1995, for the first time in
this Nation's history, agricultural yields per acre failed to increase.
That was on an apples-and-apples basis, where rainfall and so on was
taken into consideration.
Now, the suggestion is, and I am not familiar enough with that study
to know, but the suggestion is that as we have cut agricultural
research money, we are finally being caught up by lower yields of
agricultural products per acre.
When I was a youngster, 15 or 20 bushels of soybeans per acre in much
of my State was ordinary. Today, even unirrigated beans ought to make
30 to 40 bushels per acre. Rice, I can remember when 50 to 75 bushels
of rice per acre was a big crop, and today it is not uncommon, at all,
in my State, for rice farmers to make 200 bushels of rice per acre.
Cotton. When I was a kid, because we did not have any antidote to the
boll weevil, a half-bale of cotton to the acre was considered a pretty
good crop. And everybody knows what Norman Borlaug did for wheat
production in this country. All of those things were not accidental.
They were done because the Federal Government put money into
agricultural research. Right now, the fire ant is moving north.
Southern Arkansas is covered with fire ants. They do a tremendous
amount of damage. Killer bees are moving up from Mexico.
Mr. President, I am one of the people who think we probably made a
mistake when we eliminated the honey program. The honey program cost
very little. The reason I had real trouble with that amendment is
because bees pollinate plants; 15 percent of all the pollinization in
this country is done by native honey bees. The killer bees coming up
from Mexico are killing our bees, and, in addition, there are strains

[[Page S8449]]

of virus and other threats to honey bees that need to be understood.
That takes research. Once we understand the problems, solutions will
follow.
I saw a story the other day that was interesting to me because the
cranberry farmers of Massachusetts, for example, are getting terribly
upset because they depend on bee farmers to bring their hives to their
crops and pollinate them. I am not sure New Hampshire does not have
some crops similar to that, which honeybee farmers bring into New
Hampshire. And now the average life of a beehive has gone from 3 years
to 1 year. Oh, yes, we spent Federal dollars every year subsidizing the
honey industry through research. But I can tell you that is peanuts--if
you will pardon the expression--compared to the benefit that honey bees
do for the American farmers in pollinating their crops.
The Senator from Arizona mentioned aquaculture. Thirty years ago, the
farmers of Arkansas started raising catfish, domestically raised
catfish. And all the world, if they are not already familiar, should
know that it is the most beautiful, delicious, delicate, succulent fish
ever known. We went into the catfish farming business almost out of
necessity because we irrigate our rice crops and we store the water in
the wintertime. The farmers decided that as long as they have these big
ponds of stored water that they use to irrigate rice with, why not
figure out another use for those rice irrigating ponds.
My predecessor in the U.S. Senate, Bill Fulbright, helped come up
with the idea of raising catfish in those ponds. Mr. President, would
you like to know how many pounds of catfish we could raise a year per
acre? Seven-hundred pounds. And so at least we started a couple of
catfish research projects called aquaculture--all fish-raising is
aquaculture. We have one in Mississippi and one in Arkansas. In
Arkansas we think continued research is important and 2 years ago we
made substantial investments to improve our aquaculture research
facilities in Stuttgart. The 1996 farm bill redesignated that facility
as the National Aquaculture Research Center, and I can tell you we are
all very proud of it. Some of the magazines called it a $7 million fish
farm. It had nothing to do with fish farming beyond its application of
new information for fish farmers; it was all research. But over the
period of the last 30 years, because the Federal Government has put
money into fish farming research, catfish farming research, production
of catfish per acre has gone from 700 pounds per acre per year to 4,400
pounds per acre per year. And unless we continue to fund agriculture
research, we are going to be sitting around the breakfast table looking
at each other wondering what we are going to eat that day.
On the front page of the Metro section of the Post this morning there
was an interesting article concerning blue crab in the Chesapeake Bay?
The crop this year is so sparse that 500 crab pickers are out of work.
And the ones who are working are working 3 days a week. Now, if
somebody came in here and said they had a beautiful idea for
replenishing the crab population of the bay, I might vote for it. I can
assure you that those employed in the crabbing industry around
Chesapeake Bay and consumers who enjoy reasonably priced crabmeat would
be asking us to vote for it.
The Senator from Arizona mentioned Children's Hospital in Arkansas. I
can remember when the Children's Hospital in Arkansas was just a small
hospital to treat severely burned children. Today, it is one of the
finest state-of-the-art children's hospitals in America. And this is
the third year we have put money in that. What is the Department of
Agriculture doing giving money to the Children's Hospital in Arkansas?
It is for a really sophisticated nutrition program. Do you know
something else? The Children's Hospital in Little Rock is putting up a
lot of money--millions--to build a facility to house this nutrition
program. I never knew what a children's hospital was. A hospital was a
hospital to me, until my daughter became ill and the pediatrician said,
``You ought to take her to Boston.'' The finest children's hospital in
the world is in Boston, MA. That is where I took her. Today, I would
not have to go to Boston because of the tremendous strides of the
Arkansas Children's Hospital.
A member of my family left a week ago and went to the emergency room
of one of the hospitals in Washington, DC, and there were three
residents standing there. This new doctor, a young man, walked in. He
had just joined Georgetown University Hospital. When he found out I was
from Arkansas, he said, ``You know, when I finished my training and
started looking for a place to settle, believe it or not, I went to
Little Rock, AR. I looked over your Children's Hospital, and I never
got such a shock in my life. It is one of the finest facilities I have
ever been in. I nearly decided to stay in Little Rock, not only because
of the facilities but because of the quality of the people there.''
There is $425,000 in this bill to continue funding what we hope will
be one of the finest children's and nutrition programs in the United
States. Now, I can remember when it took 9 to 12 weeks to grow a
broiler, a chicken, for the retail fresh market. Today, you do it in 6
weeks. Do you know why? Because of agriculture research.
So I cannot say much more than the chairman has already said. He made
a beautiful speech on the McCain amendment a moment ago. I hope when
the time comes that the amendment, which, as I say, is arbitrary at
best, will be soundly defeated.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Hedberg, who is
working for the Senate Agriculture Committee, be given floor privileges
during the debate on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise to simply advise the Senate that
the Senator from Massachusetts came over a while ago to ask if he could
have 10 minutes as if in morning business to talk about a subject that
he discussed in the Senate earlier, and hadn't been able to complete
his remarks. I suggested that he come over around 4:30, thinking that
there might be a lull in the action so that he could proceed with
morning business remarks. But I know the Senator from North Dakota is
here to talk about the issue before the Senate. I hope we can resolve
it so that the Senator from Massachusetts can have a few minutes
following the Senator from North Dakota, or preceding the Senator,
whatever is their pleasure.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 4959

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, they are at it again. The critics of farm
programs are suggesting bad policy for agriculture and are trying to
break the promise just made to the American farmer.
On April 4 this year, the President signed into law the 1996 farm
bill. That is April 4 of this year. The proponents of that bill claim
they had a 7-year plan for agriculture, one that promised to be
reliable, one that promised to provide certainty, one that promised to
reduce Government interference.
The farm bill passed, and now we see how quickly their promises have
been broken. The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee proposed
additional cuts in addition to those already made in commodity payments
under the freedom to farm legislation. They broke their promise to the
American farmer--not 7 years later, but 7 weeks later. So much for
reliability and certainty.
Thankfully, those additional cuts in commodity payments were rejected
at the full committee level. But the critics of the farm program did
not stop there. They proposed, on the House side, capping raw sugar
prices. Imagine, people who advocate market orientation are placing
into law a limit on what prices could be in an industry. If that is not
Government interference, I do not know what is.
Under that amendment, the Republican-led House would be telling the
Government to reach into the sugar market and place an arbitrary cap on
prices. It is the ultimate irony--Government interference at its worst.
Once again, a promise was broken.
Now today we are faced with an amendment to interfere even more with
what was just agreed to months ago. The Gregg amendment eliminates the
safety net U.S. producers have

[[Page S8450]]

against heavily subsidized foreign competition.
The Senator from New Hampshire I think is well-motivated, well-
intended, but I think sadly misinformed as to international sugar and
about what happens in these markets. And I would say to my colleague
from New Hampshire that this is not like Dell Computer, or Apple
Computer, or IBM. Oh, no, that is not the way the sugar market works in
the world. This is not a free market. That is a nice idea--a textbook
idea--but it is not the real world. The sugar industry worldwide works
in a much different way. Every major producing country has a program--
every one. We are not talking about a free market. We are talking about
heavy Government involvement in every one of these producing countries.
What the Senator from New Hampshire wants to do is say to the U.S.
industry, ``You go out there and compete against all these other
countries, but without the benefit of a program. You go out there, and
we are going to engage in unilateral disarmament here in America.'' We
are going to say to our folks, ``You go out and compete not only
against other countries' farmers, but against the governments of other
countries, and good luck. We hope everything will work out.''
Everything will not work out.
Anybody who has looked at the sugar industry and what has happened
knows better, knows precisely what will happen, if we say to our
producers, ``You go out there and compete against heavily subsidized
foreign sugar and see what happens.'' We all know what will happen. Our
folks will go broke, because the treasuries of these countries with
whom we are competing are a lot bigger than the treasuries of the
individual producers.
That is the reality of what we face here. This notion that the
Senator advocates that U.S. sugar policy unfairly inflates U.S. prices
over world prices is absolutely untrue--absolutely untrue. All of us
know what happens if you take away the sugar program. This chart shows
what has happened the two times we eliminated the sugar program. Here
is what happened to prices. They skyrocketed in both cases in the early
1970's and in the early 1980's. Prices skyrocketed. Why? Because the
market knew we were headed for turbulence, a lack of certainty, that
people would dramatically reduce their plantings. And what would happen
is you would see shortages, spot shortages. And those who are producers
of sugar, refiners, bid up the price in order to assure themselves of a
stable supply. That is what has happened repeatedly.
Unfortunately, when my colleague says, ``Gee, look at the price. The
sugar price is 22 cents a pound, and the world price is 13 cents. Well,
there is evidence, there is clear evidence that this sugar program is
gouging consumers.'' Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Eighty-five percent of the sugar that is marketed in the world moves
under contract. This sugar is not in the world market at all. It is
moved under a contract. For this reason, the so-called world market is
not a world market. It is a dump market. It is where the sugar sells
that is not under contract. That is why you see the prices in the so-
called world market, the dump market, selling for 13 cents.
Look at what happens if you eliminate the sugar program. We know what
happens. Every time it has been tried, prices skyrocket. And who got
hurt? I will tell you who got hurt. The consumer got hurt. This is not
a free-market model. That is not what is happening in world sugar
production.
Make no mistake: The Gregg amendment kills the sugar program. If you
want to kill the sugar program, there is a way to do it--pass the Gregg
amendment. If you want to sock it to consumers, pass the Gregg
amendment. Prices will skyrocket. We know, it has happened before
whenever somebody actually got a mind to pursue this course. But not
only will it hurt consumers, it will hurt American producers, because
even though prices will go up, American producers will be hurt. Why?
Because we will get a flood of foreign sugar into the U.S. market.
We know what will happen. It happened every time in the past when
this and the other Chamber has decided that we should eliminate the
sugar program, that we were going to be free from the world and act as
though there is some free market in world sugar. There is no free
market.
Let me just say that the Gregg amendment is not a program. It is a
recipe for disaster. It will force dozens of millers and processors and
thousands of farmers out of business. This is not some insignificant
amendment.
In my State, there are thousands of farmers that depend on sugar for
a substantial part of their income. Kill this program, and you kill
them. And they know it. They know exactly what is happening in these
world markets. They know exactly what has happened with other
countries' programs. They know exactly what we are up against in these
world markets.
For those less familiar with sugar policy, loans are not made to
these producers, because beets and cane are not storable commodities.
It is unlike other commodities such as grains, such as corn and wheat.
Those are programs that have a payment that goes directly to producers
because those are storable commodities.
That is not the case in sugar. Sugarcane and sugar beets are not
storable. So what we have is a program where the loans are made to the
millers and processors who store the raw cane or the processed beet
sugar. As a result, producers are intricately tied to the millers and
processors. If millers and processors are no longer able to use the
loan program, they will simply go out of business and they will take
farmers with them, make no mistake.
Let us just look at how many beet processors and cane mills have
already gone out of business. This chart clearly shows that this
industry is already facing hard times. This shows what has happened to
beet and cane processing mills that have gone out of business since
1990. If anybody thinks there is some big windfall out here, somebody
is getting rich on this program, let us look at the record.
Why did all these folks go out of business if it is so good? Let us
look at beet and cane processing mills. This is just since 1990. The
record since 1980 is a whole lot darker.
Let us just look since 1990. Delta Sugar Co., beet plant, California,
went under in 1993; Holly Sugar, California, beet plant, 1993; Columbia
Sugar, cane plant, went out of business, Louisiana, 1994; Hamakua
Sugar, cane plant, Hawaii, 1994; Hilo Coast Processing, again, cane
sugar, went out of business in 1994; Oahu Sugar, cane plant, Hawaii,
1994; Spreckels Sugar, again, a California plant--this is a beet
plant--went out of business in 1996; Holly Sugar, Hamilton City, CA,
beet plant, went out of business in 1996; Ka'u Agribusiness Co., cane
plant, Hawaii, 1996, went out of business; Kaialua Sugar Co., cane
plant, Hawaii, 1996, went out of business; McBryde Sugar, cane plant,
Hawaii, went out of business in 1996; Western Sugar, Mitchell, NE, beet
plant, went out of business in 1996.
One after another, right out of business, and you pass the Gregg
amendment and we will be able to provide next year chart after chart
after chart just like this one of companies that have gone out of
business. That is what we are talking about. The stakes are high.
Let me be clear. The Gregg amendment benefits the sugar refiners.
That is who is the beneficiary if this amendment passes, not consumers.
They will not benefit. In fact, they will be hurt. Not farmers, not
beet processors, not cane mills, but refiners, they will be the
beneficiaries.
Let us look at charts that show the efforts made to increase the
supply of raw sugar in the U.S. market and the activity it caused in
the market. This chart shows what we have seen with respect to raw
sugar prices and the import quota increases over the past year and a
half as USDA allowed quota increases four consecutive times, all to the
benefit of refiners.
This chart shows raw sugar prices from 1995 to 1996. On November 9,
1995, USDA allowed another 330,000 tons to come in over quota--that is,
foreign sugar to come into the United States--and look what happened to
prices. Prices went down markedly. Then they came back up. January 17
of this year they socked it to the domestic producer again bringing in
more foreign sugar and predictably prices plunged again. Then we saw
price recovery. All of this is moving in the 22\1/2\ to 23 cents a
pound range.
On April 1, they did it again, brought in another 220,000 tons from
abroad.

[[Page S8451]]

Prices plunged. And again, June 12, just a month ago, another 165,000
tons. Look what happened to prices; a steep decline as more foreign
sugar was brought in, that benefited whom? Benefited the refiners
because they were getting more sugar to process through their plants,
more throughput, more activity, more profit.
I do not begrudge them and their profit. But let us look at what is
happening with respect to the throughput of the refiners, because the
Gregg amendment is misnamed. It ought to be called the ``refiners
benefit bill.'' That is really what we are talking about. You are
picking sides in an economic fight and you are saying we want to give
the refiners more than they are getting now.
Let us look at what the throughput has been through cane refiners'
plants in the last 10 years--1985-86 to 1995-96.
Back in 1986-87, we were looking at 5.3 million short tons. Had a bad
year in 1987-88. Then we went to 5.4 million short tons. Went up to 5.9
million--that is the peak--in 1990-91. Then we saw some pulling back.
But in 1995-96 we see a record for the refiners in terms of throughput,
6.4 million short tons--6.4 million short tons. And yet what do we have
before us? The refiners benefit bill. They have just had record
throughput. That is the amount of product going through their plants.
They just had a record year.
Well, throughput alone does not tell you what the refiners are
experiencing. You have to look at the difference between the raw sugar
price and the refined sugar price. That will tell you, combined with
throughput, how well our refiner friends are doing.
What do we find when we look at that? Well, it is very, very
interesting--very interesting, indeed. This chart shows from 1990 to
1996 raw sugar prices. That is in red. I hope there is nothing in the
way of their seeing exactly what has happened to raw sugar prices.
They have been stable for 10 years. This awful program that is
gouging consumers has provided them with stable prices for 10 years.
Name anything else that people buy in this country that has been stable
for 10 years. Tell me one thing that has been stable for 10 years. But
sugar prices, raw sugar prices have been stable. I wish I could say the
same thing for refined sugar because refined sugar, you can see,
starting in 1995, took off like a scalded cat. Refined sugar prices
jumped, and jumped dramatically at the same time raw sugar prices were
falling. Raw sugar prices were falling; refined sugar prices were
skyrocketing. I have already shown you the record throughput for
refiners in 1995-96. And yet what we have before us is a refiners
benefit bill. That is the Gregg amendment.
Why should we be passing a refiners benefit bill when they have just
had the biggest throughput in their history and, No. 2, the best
margins--the best margins--that you can find in the last 10 years?
Mr. President, what has happened, I believe, is very clear. This is a
transparent argument. The refiners want to continue to make more money
by refining cheap sugar from the world market. This amendment not only
breaks the promises of reliability, certainty, and reduced Government
interference in agriculture that was made to American farmers only 4
months ago, but it is bad policy that would send shock waves through a
domestic industry, a domestic industry that produces tens of thousands
of jobs in this country.
I hope my colleagues will join me in soundly rejecting the Gregg
amendment.
Let me just conclude by saying this is, again, not like the typical
industry. Senator Gregg refers to the computer industry, and says there
is no Government involvement there. He is right. That is a whole
different ball game than the worldwide sugar industry, where every
single major producing country has a program. Every single one of them
aggressively supports their producers. If we are to abandon ours, the
results will be very, very clear.
No. 1, we have seen what has happened in the past in terms of prices.
Prices will skyrocket. That is undeniable. The world price the Senator
refers to as 15 percent of the market is a dump market. It has no
relationship to supply/demand relations in the world. The vast majority
of sugar moves under contract in the world. So that dump market and its
so-called world price is not a world price at all, it is a dump price.
That is what people get for sugar produced above and beyond their
contractual requirements. If you take away the program you are going to
get exactly what we saw the last two times: Prices skyrocket. So
consumers are not going to be helped, they are going to be hurt.
No. 2, the processors in this country, beet processors and cane
processors, are going to be hurt. I have already shown all the plants
that have closed in 1994, 1995, and 1996. A lot of plants have closed.
Only one refiner but a lot of processing plants have closed. So those
folks would be hurt. When they are hurt the farmers are hurt because
the farmers are directly tied with those processing facilities. All of
a sudden, if you yank out from U.S. producers any support, what you
have done is changed the balance of power in these world markets.
Who have you helped? You have helped our foreign competitors. The
Gregg amendment is great if you represent a foreign country and you
produce sugar. They would look forward to the day the United States
pulls the plug on its producers and its processors. They are just
waiting for the opportunity to come in and take over this industry,
take the jobs, take the economic growth, and take the economic
opportunity.
American farmers who produce sugar are the most efficient in the
world. We are ready to compete head to head with anybody at any time.
But what our producers are not prepared to do is to take on not only
the farmers of another country but the governments of other countries.
That is not a fair fight. And our Government should not abandon our
producers and our processors, helping foreign governments, foreign
producers, foreign processors against the refiners of this country.
That is what this amendment is really about. I hope this Chamber will
do as it has done before and reject the Gregg amendment and reject it
in a resounding way.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

____________________