[Pages S9334-S9337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report will be stated.

[[Page S9335]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3603) a bill 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, having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of
the conferees.

(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of July 30, 1996.)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I present for the Senate's approval today
the conference report on H.R. 3603, the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
The conference agreement provides total appropriations of $53.3
billion. This is $10 billion less than the fiscal year 1996 enacted
level and $5 billion less than the level requested by the President. It
is $1 billion less than the total appropriations recommended by the
Senate-passed bill and $228 million more than the level recommended by
the House bill.
Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1997 of $12.96 billion in budget
authority and $13.34 billion in outlays. These amounts are within the
subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations.
The committee of conference on this bill considered 147 amendments in
disagreement between the two Houses. I believe it is a credit to the
all members of this subcommittee who served as conferees on the part of
the Senate and to the House Members who served on the conference
committee that we were able to resolve our differences and reach a
conference agreement 6 days after the Senate passed the bill. I would
like to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from
Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers; the chairman of the House subcommittee who
chaired the conference, the Congressman from New Mexico, Mr. Skeen; the
ranking member of the House subcommittee, the Congressman from
Illinois, Mr. Durbin; as well as all House and Senate members of the
conference committee for their support and cooperation in this regard.
It is with a great deal of pride that I can say this Appropriations
Subcommittee has done its work, completing action on this
appropriations bill to assure that funding for those agencies it covers
is in place before the start of the new fiscal year. Senate adoption of
this conference report today is the final step necessary to allow this
measure to be sent to the President for signature into law. We have
every indication that the bill will be signed by the President.

Approximately $40.4 billion, close to 76 percent of the total new
budget authority provided, is provided for domestic food programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food
stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental nutrition
program for women, infants, and children; and the school lunch and
breakfast programs. This is $58 million below the House bill level and
$906 million below the Senate level. The difference from the Senate
recommended level is principally due to the fact that the Senate
receded to the House on the amount for the Food Stamp Program
contingency reserve which was $900 million below the Senate bill level.
For agriculture programs, the conference report recommends a total of
$7.5 billion, $104 million more than the House-recommended level and
$19 million more than the Senate bill level. This amount includes $1.1
billion for agricultural research and education, $426 million for
extension activities, $438 million for the Animal Plant Health and
Inspection Service, $574 million--the full budget request level--for
the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $746 million for the Farm
Service Agency, and $64 million for the Office of Risk Assessment.
For conservation programs, the conference report recommends $770
million, $2 million more than the House bill level and $20 million less
than the level recommended by the Senate.
For rural economic and community development programs, the bill
recommends $2 billion, $136 million more than the House level and $108
million less than the Senate bill level. Included in this amount is
$556.9 million for the Rural Utilities Assistance Program, which
combines funding for rural water and waste disposal loans and grants
and solid waste management grants. This represents an increase of $79
million over the 1996 level. The bill also provides a total loan level
of $3.5 billion for rural housing loan programs, the same as the level
approved by the House and Senate, and $519 million over the 1996 level.

For foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of
Agriculture, the bill recommends $131 million for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, including $27.5 million for the Cooperator
Program; a total program level of $1.1 billion for the Public Law 480
Food for Peace Program, including a program level of $240.8 million for
title I, $837 million for title II, and $29.5 million for title III.
Mr. President, this bill provides funding for many essential
programs, programs which enhance and support the productivity of our
agricultural sector, which provide essential services to the small and
rural communities of this Nation, which conserve and protect our
natural resources, and which provide needed food assistance, not only
to those abroad but to assure no American goes hungry. Many of these
programs are worthy of additional funding. However, we are also working
to reduce the overall costs of Government and to assure efficiencies in
the operation of Government programs. This bill is consistent with our
overall budgetary and policy goals.
Mr. President, the conference report we present to the Senate today
reflects a mutually satisfactory resolution of the differences between
the two Houses. It does so in a manner which reflects the funding
requirements of the many programs and activities covered by the bill
within the limited resources available.
I recommend its adoption by my colleagues.

regarding The Center for Applied Aquaculture in Hawaii

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, over the years, the Congress has been
supportive of utilizing Hawaii's unique environment to develop
important science-based aquaculture technology and to demonstrate and
provide that technology to the U.S. aquaculture industry. With initial
construction funding for Hawaii's Center for Applied Aquaculture in
1988 and subsequent installments in 1994 and 1995, enough money has
been appropriated in the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service's buildings and facilities account to complete
construction of a full-fledged aquaculture research and
precommercialization facility in the Hawaiian Islands.
The dynamic proposal for the Center for Applied Aquaculture has grown
to demonstrate the importance of a core research facility together with
satellite facilities, including grow-out ponds to demonstrate new
technology on a larger than laboratory precommercialization scale,
protected quarantine facilities to ensure the all-important maintenance
of disease free fish stock, and a hatchery to supply fry to the
research and demonstration components.
Hawaii's island geography and the physical limitations of the core
research facility dictate the establishment of the essential satellite
demonstration, quarantine and hatchery facilities on neighboring
islands. There would be no question about building these integral
components if the core research site could accommodate them properly.
However, with no further appropriation and with the support of the
Agriculture Department for the satellite components, all of this can
still be accomplished in Hawaii. I would hope that my colleagues,
Chairman Cochran and Senator Bumpers, could support this vision of
Hawaii's Center for Applied Aquaculture, which will not only provide
for a total package of groundbreaking aquaculture technology that can
be demonstrated at a level to make it viable for private commercial
investment, but will also give the Federal Government the highest and
best use of its investment over the last 8 years.
Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with my colleague from Hawaii and recommend that
the Department favorably consider the Center for Applied Aquaculture's
plans to establish a complete

[[Page S9336]]

aquaculture research and precommercialization facility in Hawaii.
Mr. BUMPERS. I would like to associate myself with Senator Cochran's
comments on this matter and urge the Department to respond positively
to the Center for Applied Aquaculture's proposal for a core aquaculture
technology development facility together with integral satellite
facilities to demonstrate those technologies for the benefit of U.S.
aquaculture industry.
Mr. INOUYE. I very much appreciate my colleagues' interest and
support for enhancing the U.S. aquaculture industry by developing,
testing, and transferring science-based technology to the commercial
aquaculture sector.

Horticultural and Water Management Research Laboratory

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the ranking member of
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies about a
facility important to U.S. agricultural research and the State of
California. The President's budget request included $22 million for
construction of a Horticultural and Water Management Research
Laboratory at Palier, CA. This facility will be operated by the
Agricultural Research Service [ARS], the research arm of the Department
of Agriculture.
This facility will contribute greatly to solutions for many of the
problems facing our farmers and others reliant on proper management of
our natural resources. The facility will conduct critically important
research on water management, postharvest quality, insect control and
quarantine operations. All these functions are becoming increasingly
important as we all try to balance the needs of water users,
environmental protection, and the maintenance of a safe and abundant
food supply. Currently, this research is housed in inadequate and
inappropriate space, with many researchers using parked trailers as
office and laboratory facilities. I agree with the President that this
facility must be completed as soon as possible in order to upgrade our
Nation's research capabilities and continue to make our farmers
competitive in growing world markets.
I would like to know if the Senator can share with me the views of
the conferees of the pending appropriations bill regarding this
important project.
Mr. BUMPERS. I would like to respond to the Senator from California
by stating that I and the other conferees are very aware of this budget
item and agree that construction should commence at the earliest
possible date.
I am happy to report that the Senate bill included $11 million for
this facility. I wish we could have provided the full amount requested
by the Senator from California, but our allocation, being severely
reduced from the previous year, prevented us from meeting her full
request. Unfortunately, the House provided no funding for this project.
As the Senator knows, once construction begins, any delays in project
completion eventually result in greater cost. There were a number of
ARS facility projects nearing completion that could be completed in
fiscal year 1997. Accordingly, the conferees decided to complete those
projects before allocating funds for new facilities in order to better
manage our limited resources.
There was discussion about the merits of the Palier laboratory during
House and Senate conference negotiations. It is intended that by
completing ongoing projects, which will be no longer the subject of
future appropriations, we will be able to provide higher levels of
funding for other priority needs. If we can provide full funding for
the Palier facility next year, it will serve the double benefits of
assisting the U.S. agricultural industry and helping us use our fiscal
resources more efficiently.
Although it is impossible now to know what our allocation will be for
fiscal year 1998, it is clear that if provided adequate resources, it
would be to everyone's advantage to provide full funding for the Palier
laboratory in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his explanation and I look
forward to working with him again next year on this important project.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is considering the conference
report accompanying H.R. 3603, the agriculture, rural development and
related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
The conference agreement provides $52.3 billion in new budget
authority [BA] and $44.9 billion in new outlays to fund most of the
programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies.
All of the funding in this bill is for nondefense purposes.
When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are
taken into account, the final bill totals $55.3 billion in BA and $54.2
billion in outlays for fiscal year 1997. Including mandatory savings,
the subcommittee is $158 million in BA and $71 million in outlays below
its 602(b) allocation.
The final conference agreement includes legislative changes in
mandatory programs totaling $505 million and $484 million in outlays.
The savings from these provisions are then used to pay for
discretionary spending in the bill.
The majority of these mandatory savings come from provisions limiting
the standard deduction under the Food Stamp Program. CBO scores these
savings at $345 million in both BA and outlays for fiscal year 1997.
The Senate will soon take up the conference report on the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996--the
long-awaited welfare reform bill--that has gained bipartisan support
and a commitment from the President to sign this bill into law.
This historic measure includes identical savings from freezing the
food stamp standard deduction. By counting these savings in both bills,
which are expected to be signed by the President, we give up additional
deficit reduction by the amount of the duplicate mandatory savings.
These mandatory savings assist the subcommittee in completing the
appropriations bill well within its current 602(b) allocation. For
discretionary spending, the final bill is $991 million in BA and $774
million in outlays below the President's budget request. The final bill
is $159 million in BA above the House-passed bill, and $9 million in
outlays below the House-passed bill. The conference agreement is $884
million in BA and $694 million in outlays below the 1996 level.
I am pleased that the conferees retained the language I requested
requiring competitive bidding for WIC infant formula. This provision
will ensure that in these times of tight budgets we maximize the
benefits we get from the dollars we spend on this important program.
It is estimated that up to one quarter of the WIC caseload--1.5
million children and pregnant women--is served as a result of the $1
billion in savings generated from competitive bidding for infant
formula.
I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman for including this
provision in the bill and retaining the language in conference.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the
Record.

AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE: SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal year 1997, dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions
completed...................................... ......... $3,853
H.R. 3603, conference report.................... $12,960 9,487
Scorekeeping adjustment......................... ......... .........
---------------------
Subtotal nondefense discretionary............. 12,960 13,340
Mandatory:
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions
completed...................................... 497 3,533
H.R. 3603, conference report.................... 39,385 35,435
Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with
Budget......................................... ......... .........
Resolution assumptions........................ 2,418 1,845
---------------------
Subtotal mandatory............................ 42,300 40,813
=====================
Adjusted bill total........................... 55,260 54,153
=====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary........................... ......... .........
Nondefense discretionary........................ 13,118 13,411
Violent crime reduction trust fund.............. ......... .........
Mandatory....................................... 42,300 40,813
Total allocation.............................. 55,418 54,224
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate
Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary........................... ......... .........
Nondefense discretionary........................ -158 -71
Violent crime reduction trust fund.............. ......... .........
Mandatory....................................... ......... .........
Total allocation.............................. -158 -71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with current scorekeeping conventions. Prepared by SBC
Majority Staff, July 31, 1996, 06:50 p.m.

Medguide

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to engage the Senator from
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, the chairman of the

[[Page S9337]]

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, about his
understanding of the provision included in the conference report of the
fiscal year 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill relating to the FDA's
proposed medguide regulation.
Am I correct in saying that the conferees retained the language in
the conference report that was adopted by the full Senate last week?
Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, Senator. This conference report retains the
language, as adopted by the Senate, that prevents further finalization
or implementation of the medguide regulation.
Mr. COATS. At this point, I would like to make sure I understand that
this provision does not preclude the FDA from using its existing
authority to require, on a drug-by-drug basis, the provision of written
information prepared by the manufacturer to consumers about
prescription drugs that pose a serious risk.
We have been informed by the FDA that it will only be required to use
its existing authority to require patient information for a very
limited number of products.
Mr. COCHRAN. That is the committee's understanding, as well. The
committee believes that the FDA's current authority to require written
patient information is essential for certain prescription drugs, on a
drug-by-drug basis, in cases where they pose a serious risk to the
patient if used inappropriately.
Mr. COATS. I thank the Chairman for clarifying this and appreciate
his leadership and assistance in helping us craft a compromise that is
acceptable to the committee and to the FDA.

Medication Guides

Mr. KENNEDY. The provision we are enacting on medication guides
places certain limitations on the FDA regarding its pending medication
guide regulation as it pertains to voluntary information provided by
pharmacists. However, as you know, there was another part of the
pending FDA regulation that was not intended to be affected by this
provision. That was the FDA's intention to require FDA-approved patient
leaflets for drugs that pose a serious and significant public health
risk. Those would be drugs that cannot be used appropriately without
specific written information provided to the patient. Although the
instances in which such leaflets would be required would be very
small--no more than three or four per year--it is critical that FDA
have the flexibility to use regulations to ensure that these drugs can
be safely used, as was specifically provided for in the House language
of H.R. 3603 as well as in the Senate report accompanying H.R. 3603
which stated ``this provision is not to be construed as prohibiting the
FDA from using its existing authority or regulatory authority to
require as part of the manufacturers' approved product labeling the
dispensing of written information inserts to consumers on a case-by-
case basis with select prescription drugs to meet certain patient
safety requirements.''
Mr. BUMPERS. Your understanding is correct. As we noted in the Senate
report accompanying H.R. 3603 at the time, the provision covering the
voluntary medication leaflet program was not to be construed as
applying in any way to the FDA's use of its existing authority to
require patient leaflets for drugs that can cause severe birth defects,
have serious adverse reactions when used with other drugs, and similar
instances that pose a serious and significant public health risk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order of yesterday, the 31st of
July, 1996, the Senate having received the conference report on H.R.
3603, the agriculture appropriations bill, the conference report is
agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
The conference report was agreed to.

____________________