Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Popcorn Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Act which will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue an order establishing a popcorn promotion program. This will be similar to other agricultural promotion programs for dairy, beef, pork, eggs, and potatoes, to name a few. Americans consume 17.3 billion quarts of popped popcorn annually, or 68 quarts per person. It is one of the most wholesome and economical foods available to the consumer. My home State of Indiana leads all States in popcorn production, with more than 77,000 acres harvested last year. Following Indiana, major popcorn producing States are Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Michigan. In the past, the popcorn industry has united to promote and market its product. Total popcorn sales, as a result of these efforts, have grown throughout the past several years, but great potential exists to accelerate this trend with a larger, industry-wide, cooperative effort. Under a popcorn promotion program, popcorn processors would pay a small assessment on each pound of popcorn marketed. The Secretary of Agriculture would then select a Popcorn Board, made up of representatives from the industry to administer the program, with oversight by USDA. The funds collected would be used for research, promotion and consumer information projects with the goal of increasing consumption of popcorn. The entire popcorn industry would benefit from a popcorn promotion program. These programs have been extremely successful for other commodities. Furthermore, they operate at no cost to the Federal Government, because all Government expenses are reimbursed from the programs funds. I urge my colleagues to support this self-help agricultural initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Popcorn Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Act which will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue an order establishing a popcorn promotion program. This will be similar to other agricultural promotion programs for dairy, beef, pork, eggs, and potatoes, to name a few. Americans consume 17.3 billion quarts of popped popcorn annually, or 68 quarts per person. It is one of the most wholesome and economical foods available to the consumer. My home State of Indiana leads all States in popcorn production, with more than 77,000 acres harvested last year. Following Indiana, major popcorn producing States are Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Michigan. In the past, the popcorn industry has united to promote and market its product. Total popcorn sales, as a result of these efforts, have grown throughout the past several years, but great potential exists to accelerate this trend with a larger, industry-wide, cooperative effort. Under a popcorn promotion program, popcorn processors would pay a small assessment on each pound of popcorn marketed. The Secretary of Agriculture would then select a Popcorn Board, made up of representatives from the industry to administer the program, with oversight by USDA. The funds collected would be used for research, promotion and consumer information projects with the goal of increasing consumption of popcorn. The entire popcorn industry would benefit from a popcorn promotion program. These programs have been extremely successful for other commodities. Furthermore, they operate at no cost to the Federal Government, because all Government expenses are reimbursed from the programs funds. I urge my colleagues to support this self-help agricultural initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee markup of the committee's budget reconciliation instructions. The markup [[Page S 13671]] will be held on Tuesday, September 19, 1995, at 9 a.m. in SR-332.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an employee of the Congressional Research Service, Joe Richardson, be granted privilege of the floor during consideration of welfare reform legislation.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I ask once again for clarification of how much time remains to the two sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me just indicate again that the welfare reform bill in front of the Senate is not one that is permissive. It talks about reform and reduction, as the distinguished Senator from Missouri has pointed out. All of the requirements that I mentioned in the reform of food stamps are clearly not permissive. They do not permit a program that is open-ended. Quite to the contrary, they demand a program that reduces expenses by $30 billion in 7 years of time, a program that is thoroughly conversant with fraud and abuse, as has been observed and will be discovered by States that attempt to run these complex programs. But, Mr. President, I have no quarrel with a Governor or a State that wishes to take over the Food Stamp Program. As a matter of fact, the bill in front of us permits that explicitly. What I do think is inadvisable is for the Congress--or the Senate more particularly today--to simply say, whether you want the program or not, it is yours and you are going to have to deal with it, all of the regulations, all of the stipulations. And even if you are well motivated to serve those who are hungry, you are going to have to figure out from scratch how to do that and on a limited amount of money that will not increase whether the economic times change or the population changes. That I think, Mr. President, is ill-advised, and so do many others. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, Mr. President, letters from the Food Marketing Institute, from the National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association, the National Cattlemen's Association, and the National Peanut Council, Inc., that back the current proposals in the welfare bill that is before us and would oppose block-granting food stamp programs.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his thoughtful debating comments. He has offered leadership in the [[Page S 13336]] nutrition area throughout the entirety of the 19 years that I have served in this body. Throughout that period of time, I have been deeply concerned about the Food Stamp Program for several reasons, and the distinguished Senator from Missouri has expanded on many of them. The Food Stamp Program, because it is a national program and an extraordinarily complex one dealing with myriad retail situations, has led to great fraud and abuse. That has been a concern of the Committee on Agriculture really throughout the entirety of the program. It has to be our concern today. But I have also been deeply concerned about the Food Stamp Program because it is the basic safety net for nutrition for Americans. It is the stopper, in terms of people starving, in this country. We have known that. We have regretted its abuse on occasion, but we have cherished the thought that every American, in a country of abundance, would have a chance to eat. That is fundamental and that we must preserve. The distinguished Senator from Missouri, the great Governor of his State, has been a fighter for the reinvigoration of federalism, and I share that idealism. As mayor of the city of Indianapolis, I was involved in the first wave of the new federalism with President Nixon. Program after program came to our city. We tried to demonstrate, I think with some success, that mayors and local officials, in addition to Governors and county officials, can handle most of the aspects of the internal workings of government in this United States best at the local level. Clearly, in the welfare reform debate we are now having, we are about to test out the proposition that we should give back to States and local governments authority to handle a great deal of difficult matters. But in the case of the food stamp and nutrition programs, the House of Representatives and the Senate to date have said that there must be a safety net, basically, for eating, for nutrition--a safety net against starvation in this country. This is not an experimental situation in which, as the Senator from Missouri advocates, like it or not we send it back to the States and say to the Governors: ``You are going to have to run it. You may not have asked for it. You may not wish to deal with it at all. But, by golly, you are going to have it and with exactly the same amount of money being spent now with a little bit of inflation rise per year. It does not matter whether the country is in recession or prosperity; it does not matter whether you have more people coming in. That is your tough luck. We are going to send it to you because we are tired of it and we do not want to spend any more money on it and we do not want to take the responsibility for it.'' Mr. President, I believe that is an understandable attitude but, I hope, not the attitude the Senate winds up with today. Because, for many thousands of Americans, that is likely to be a disastrous decision and Senators really have to consider and weigh on their consciences today the proposition, which is a very fundamental one, before us. As the Senator from Vermont pointed out, we are not doing this amendment as a favor to Governors. As a matter of fact, most have not requested this responsibility. Most of the Governors coming into our committee have not wanted the responsibility. To give some impression that Governors all over the country are eager to grasp all of this is totally erroneous. There are some very able Governors who want to run it, and my judgment is that they will run it very well. But we have had a good number of Governors who have said we are inundated by people. We are inundated by the economic cycle. Yet, here we debate on this floor today the thought that, like it or not, the States will simply have the Food Stamp Program, or, as a matter of fact, they may not have much of a program at all. The Governors may decide, in fact, to use the money for something else. If you happen to be a citizen of one of those States, you are out of luck. We have said thus far, Mr. President, that if you are an American, if you are here in this country and you are unemployed, you are disabled and you have problems, there is at least a safety net. And we have been proud that has been the case. Let me just say that the Committee on Agriculture, long before we got into the welfare debate, was involved in reform of food stamp discussions this year. We are also involved in a very serious budget problem. We are going to have a reconciliation bill shortly. By September 22, we must report from our committee $48.4 billion of savings over a 7-year period of time. Mr. President, we have identified $30 billion of savings in the nutrition programs and most of that in the Food Stamp Program. The Committee on Agriculture has been diligent because we have tried to both reform the program and make certain it was less expensive even while retaining the basic safety net of the program. The House of Representatives has done a similar job. Mr. President, I will point out that the Republican leadership welfare proposal we are now debating, as does the House bill, does not block grant the Food Stamp Program but makes dramatic changes in its structure. It greatly expands the States' administrative flexibility and ability to implement welfare reform initiatives. By allowing States to operate a State-designed simplified food stamp program for cash welfare recipients and have more control over a host of regular program rules, States are given the option of taking the food stamp assistance as a block grant. So, Mr. President, if I am in error--and there are a host of Governors out there who have been eager to get this program, they are going to have that option. They may be lined up at the door, but I have not seen the line. All I am saying is they have that option. If they do so, they must spend 80 percent of the money that the Federal Government is spending on food. The rest can be spent on employment and training programs and, up to 6 percent, on administration. The citizens in their State will have to hope that those Governors and legislators, if they become involved in that decision--that is a very interesting question, Mr. President: What if there was a case in which State legislators allow the Governor alone to make such a decision? Should a decision as grave as this one be vested in a Governor to take an entire State off the Food Stamp Program irrevocably, a one-time decision from which there is no return without the legislature, without any check and balance within that State? Should the Governor, in fact, be prepared to terminate the program if that is his wish or her wish, as the case may be? Where is the democracy in that situation even while we are eager to shed this burden and move down the trail of devolution? Let me say it is important that Senators know the reforms that were enacted by the Agriculture Committee and have been adopted by the leadership proposal. I cite not all of them but ones that I think are very important that Senators know are a part of this bill but would not be a part necessarily of any regime in any State that decided simply to block grant food stamps. In this bill, we disqualify any adult who voluntarily quits a job or reduces work effort. We deny food stamps to able-bodied adults 18 to 50 without children who received food stamps for 6 months out of the previous 12 months without working or participating in a work program at least half time. Those are pretty stringent qualifications. We ensure that food stamp benefits do not increase when a recipient's welfare benefits are reduced for failing to comply with other non-work- related welfare rules, such as the failure to get children immunized. States may also reduce food stamp allotments for up to 25 percent for failure to comply with other welfare programs rules. States may do that. We allow in this bill States to disqualify an individual from food stamps for the period that they are disqualified from other public assistance programs for failure to perform an action required in the other program. For example, failure to comply with AFDC work requirements must trigger a food stamp disqualification. We establish mandatory minimum disqualification periods for violation of work rules, and States may adopt even longer disqualification periods and may permanently [[Page S 13337]] disqualify a recipient for a third violation of a work rule-- permanently disqualify. We give States control over the Food Stamp Program for households composed entirely of AFDC members as long as Federal costs do not increase. States choose their AFDC rules, food stamp rules, or a combination to develop one standardized set of rules. States may do all of this under this bill. Mr. President, if this is the case, a Senator might ask, why the objection to simply letting States do it all? Why not make it permissive? Why spell it out in a Federal bill? We do so to preserve a national safety net. The leadership bill before us now that we are debating is not a bill that is very permissive. This is a bill that saves $30 billion over 7 years. In almost every conceivable way, in the 106 pages which the Agriculture Committee put together, it tries to make certain that food stamp programs stay on the straight and narrow. Perhaps State legislatures will want to replicate that. Perhaps legislatures want to borrow this intact and pass it as a State law. But if they do not, Mr. President, the Governor of that State is going to have a heck of a time administering food stamps. The provisions in the leadership bill come from a body of knowledge and experience over the years of how fraud and abuse occur, and it occurs in many, many ways, not easily discovered in a transition period of a few weeks during which time the States with or without enthusiasm take over the Food Stamp Program. Mr. President, the overwhelming case for a rejection of this amendment finally comes back to the fact that none of us can foretell the future in a dynamic economy such as ours. We are a free country. Thank goodness. People can move from State to State, and they do so by the tens of millions every year. Yet, Mr. President, we are in the process of about to lock in flat amounts to States for the duration of this experiment, an amount of money that will not be changed if that State has a huge number of new people coming into it for whatever reason. Perhaps States may say, ``Well, we will control that. We will simply abandon the Food Stamp Program. There is nothing attractive about our State. Why not let other States that have a food stamp program take care of persons who are disabled or suddenly unemployed, or infants and children or what have you? Why not let those States take care of them?" Mr. President, people can pick and choose where to live by their migratory patterns in this country. Perhaps the idea of a safety net wherever it is, is not attractive to Senators or citizens. But I have not heard the case made on those grounds very frequently. And I would say furthermore that even if there were no changes in population in the country, clearly there are changes every year in the economic cycle. In my home State of Indiana in 1982--I was reminded of this as we were discussing another food stamp amendment yesterday--in Kokomo, IN, in Anderson, in Muncie, Indiana where there were large concentrations of auto workers at a time of great recession, the unemployment reached, in each of those cities, 20 percent. I would just say that kind of unemployment is massive, and it is horrible to witness. The Food Stamp Program was very important to those cities, very important to our State. Whoever was Governor of Indiana could not have anticipated in 1979 and 1980 or even 1981 that there would be 20- percent unemployment in those localities. There was no way anyone could have been wise enough to have prophesied that. But the Governor of Indiana was mighty pleased that in fact there was a safety net for nutrition in our country and in the State of Indiana at that point and that he was not responsible at that moment for facing a whole apparatus for administering the Food Stamp Program. Our Governor did not assert that he was wiser than everybody in the country; that he could do it better. He knew the problems better in Kokomo. Of course, he did. But that would not have made a whit of difference in terms of the nutrition needs of people who were suddenly and massively unemployed in ways that were not going to be remedied very rapidly. Mr. President, it is simply reckless in a country of great dynamic changes of population and in the economic cycle to throw away the safety net; and that is the issue here. The Senator from Missouri, in intellectual fairness, has presented very squarely that his amendment is the end of the Federal safety net, the end of the Federal Food Stamp Program, and there are many who will rejoice in that and say good riddance; we should never have started this humanitarian effort to begin with. I am not one of them, Mr. President. I am hopeful a majority of Senators do not join in that point of view either. Of course, we must reform, and I have listed 6 of possibly 50 very sizable, tough reforms. Of course, we have to downsize and, of course, we have to economize. And we are doing it with a vengeance; $30 billion in 7 years for food stamp recipients, but, of course, we must have a safety net in a vast and complex country such as ours. Mr. President, I yield and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator as much time as he requires.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LUGAR. I yield myself as much time as I may require for a concluding statement. I see no other Senators wishing to speak on this subject on our side. Mr. President, let me just state the case for retaining the welfare bill in front of us, the leadership bill, which permits block granting to States but does not demand it. First of all, the mandatory block grant would subject poor children, families, and elderly people to serious risks during economic downturns. Second, the formula for distributing funds would be inequitable and would penalize large numbers of States, especially those with expanding population. Third, the Agriculture Committee, which I chair, would have to make deeper cuts in farm programs or the school lunch or other child nutrition programs because the amounts in the Ashcroft amendment are not as great a cut as the ones that we have already made. There is a discrepancy of over $3 billion as we calculate it. Fourth, the amendment would likely lead to sharp reductions in food purchases and nutritional well-being and would injure the food and agricultural sectors of our economy. Fifth, the bill denies food stamps to indigent, elderly, and disabled people who do not meet the work requirements. Sixth, the amendment allows States to withdraw all State funds used to administer the Food Stamp Program and substitute Federal funds for them. Seventh, the amendment would widen disparity among States and intensify a race to the bottom. Eighth, Mr. President, it would weaken the safety net for children throughout the country. And, finally, the amendment could increase fraud even though the desire, obviously, of the proponents is to limit fraud. There is no guarantee that States, starting from scratch in a complex program, would enjoy a situation of a greater fight against fraud than we experience in the Federal Government. Really, I think the evidence is to the contrary. Mr. President, for all of these reasons, plus the obvious one, and that is a safety net of nutrition for Americans is vital and it should not be cast away in this amendment, I call for the defeat of the Ashcroft amendment and the retention of the safety net that we have currently. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our public assistance programs should encourage work, not dependency. The Senator from North Carolina and I agree on this. However, this amendment affects the wrong people. It would deny food stamps to able-bodied 18- to 55-year-old persons without dependents unless they work at least part time. Many people who fit that description are not long-term food stamp recipients. Individuals who have long job histories but who are laid off when a factory closes would be denied benefits under this amendment. This result should concern all of us. Individuals who have never been on the Food Stamp Program and who have always worked are exactly the kinds of people that the Food Stamp Program should help--people who face a temporary setback. Individuals who have been laid off when a factory closes may face high local unemployment and may find it difficult to get a job. The case of the people I have described is not unusual. Over half of all food stamp recipients will only stay on for a matter of months, and they will most likely leave because their earnings increase. A major goal of the Agriculture Committee was to preserve a safety net for people who have played by the rules and need a helping hand through hard times, while ending the free ride for those categories of recipients who have most taken advantage of the system. Under the leadership bill, able bodied, nonelderly adults without dependent children will have their benefits time limited if they are not in a job or employment program at least halftime. The time limit in the leadership bill prohibits the receipt of food stamps for those who were not working for 6 months out of a year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, approximately 700,000 people would be subject to this requirement in an average month. USDA's estimate is higher. However, under the leadership bill, the Secretary of Agriculture may waive this provision in areas with over 8-percent unemployment or if there are insufficient local jobs. The amendment by the Senator from North Carolina does not contain any waiver language. In addition, AFDC block grant recipients who violate an AFDC work program requirement will be sanctioned under the Food Stamp Program. For an AFDC recipient who has been disqualified from food stamps due to an AFDC work violation, the food stamp disqualification continues until compliance even if the recipient loses AFDC eligibility. Numerous other provisions in the bill promote work. For example, States will--for the first time--be able to permanently disqualify repeat violators of work rules. Mr. President, I urge Senators to vote against this amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the dilemma with the Helms amendment is very simple. That is in many communities throughout the country there are not volunteer programs. There are not work programs that people could take up. In some cases, there are not jobs. Frankly, the problem is the amendment affects able-bodied people who are temporarily laid off, as people sometimes are in this country, during recessions or during closing of factories or economic change. It does not really give a very good opportunity for those people to qualify for food stamps. USDA estimates 700,000 people would be affected. By and large, these are people, often with long work records, who temporarily have bad luck. In my judgment, the amendment has the merit of trying to tighten up the food stamp situation but it does so at the expense of able-bodied Americans who should not be penalized. I encourage the Senate to defeat the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to draw the attention of my Senate colleagues to a successful international exchange program involving the youth of America. This program, the Japan-United States Senate Youth Exchange Program has been sponsored over the years by the Government of Japan and the Center for Global Partnership and has been sending young students from the United States to Japan for the past 15 years. The program, which was inaugurated by Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki in 1981, offers outstanding United States high school students the opportunity to spend a summer with a Japanese host family through Youth for Understanding [YFU] International Exchange. As these young people assume positions in business, government, education, and other endeavors, they play a significant role in strengthening the bonds between Japan and the United States. In the past, 2 students from each of the 50 States of the United States were selected to participate in this exchange program. Because of funding reductions, only 1 student from each State now participates in the program. This is regrettable and represents a downward trend in international exchanges. The imbalance of exchanges between the United States and Japan is worrisome: there are 20 Japanese exchangees in the United States for every 1 American exchange student in Japan. And funding from Japan for exchanges is much greater than funding from the United States. I hope this imbalance can be corrected. Mr. President, the Japan-United States Senate Youth Exchange Program has been functioning in the best interests of the United States, Japan, and the individual student and family participants. I want to take this occasion to salute and encourage the efforts of both public and private contributors who have assisted and continue to assist this worthwhile program.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Jill Long to be the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Economic and Community Development. As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I successfully urged my colleagues on that committee to support my fellow Hoosier for this key position. The committee approved her nomination by a unanimous voice vote on August 9. Many Senators have worked with Jill as a respected and valued colleague on the House Agriculture Committee. She served on that committee with distinction from the time of her election to Congress in 1989. Jill Long was raised on a grain and dairy farm in Whitley County, Indiana. Her active involvement in helping to manage the farm continued through the difficult period of the 1980s. At the same time, she began her public service in 1983 on the Valparaiso City Council. She has a distinguished teaching career at Valparaiso University, Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne, and Indiana University in Bloomington. The nominee has had a long interest in rural development issues. During her chairmanship of the Congressional Rural Caucus, that group's membership more than doubled. She has a reputation for approaching issues thoughtfully and with common sense. Although we are of different parties, we have often worked together in a bipartisan way on issues that affected our State. Last year, we joined in promoting legislation to roll back unnecessary and intrusive federal environmental regulations that, in effect, treated soybean oil as the equivalent of toxic petroleum oil. The agencies and programs Ms. Long will oversee are important to rural America's future. We must consolidate an array of existing programs into a more coherent economic development effort. The Agriculture Committee voted to do precisely that when it approved a rural development title for the 1995 farm bill last month. The nominee will need both creativity and perseverance to manage effectively her substantial portfolio at USDA. She will need to set priorities and identify opportunities. She must decisively correct problems and insist on efficient management. She will need to provide focus to a part of USDA that is very important--but suffers from a lack of clear direction. I believe Jill Long is well qualified for the position to which she has been nominated. She acquitted herself ably during her confirmation hearing, and I urge Senators to vote in favor of her nomination.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce bipartisan legislation that will help ensure that continued availability of a safe, affordable, and abundant food supply in our Nation. This bill reforms the scientifically outdated Delaney clause. The continuation of and strict enforcement of the Delaney clause enacted in 1958 could have a significant negative impact on our Nation's farmers and ranchers. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act [FFDCA] establishes rules for setting tolerances for pesticide residues on food which differ for raw and processed commodities. Residues in raw commodities are subject to section 408 of the FFDCA which requires that residue tolerances be set for raw food commodities at levels necessary to protect public health considering the need for an adequate, wholesome, and economic food supply. Thus risk and benefits are balanced in determining an acceptable tolerance level. This approach allows EPA to determine what level of risks are acceptable and to set tolerance levels accordingly. Such an approach is scientifically defensible. Balancing risk and benefits is a fundamental component in any decisionmaking process, whether it concerns pesticides or any other product in the marketplace. When pesticide residues concentrate in processed foods above levels of sanctioned on raw commodities, they are treated as food additives under section 409. The Delaney clause in section 409 prohibits granting a residue tolerance for any food additive that has been found to cause cancer in humans or animals, no matter how low the estimated risk might be. Thus, for processed foods, no pesticide residue is permitted, if the pesticide is a possible carcinogen and is concentrated above the level permitted on or in the raw food. Advances in science and technology improving our ability to detect small quantities of substances, to parts per trillion in some cases, have shown that the Delaney clause enacted in 1958 is scientifically outdated. As has been stated by EPA Administrator Browner, the pesticides impacted by the Delaney clause do not pose an unacceptable risk to public health. This is not a partisan issue, as evidenced by the strong show of support from the cosponsors of this bill today. This group of Senators agrees: The Delaney clause needs modernization. The scientific evidence is clear. Almost a decade ago, the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences recommended the use of a single negligible risk standard for approving acceptable levels of pesticide residues in both raw and processed foods. This recommendation appeared in the NRC's 1987 report, ``Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox.'' This bill implements the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences report by establishing a negligible risk standard for both raw and processed foods. Under current procedures, Federal regulators must deal with two distinct and conflicting standards for pesticide residues on raw and processed foods. Despite many years of acknowledging the need for Delaney reform, Congress has failed to pass legislation. After the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in 1988 articulated its de minimis policy for interpreting Delaney, the agency was sued. In 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of strict enforcement of Delaney. A consent decree in another case, agreed to by EPA this year, establishes an expedited schedule of review of all pesticides impacted by Delaney. Reform can no longer be delayed. Continuation of the Delaney clause and its strict enforcement could impact the international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. The judicious use of pesticides has enabled our Nation's farmers to improve yields and efficiency and become high quality and competitive producers for the global marketplace. Researchers at the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy have estimated that strict enforcement of Delaney could result in an increase in production costs of $175 million in the first year and yield losses totaling $212 million per year. This bill also addresses concerns that have been raised following another report of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.'' This legislation directs EPA, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate the development and implementation of procedures to ensure that pesticide tolerances adequately safeguard the health of infants and children based on this report released in 1993. Providing regulatory relief for minor use pesticides is also important in helping to ensure the availability of minor use pesticides for farmers and an abundant and varied food supply for our Nation. Minor use pesticides are generally used on relatively small acreage or for regional pest or disease problems. Because there is a significant cost to develop scientific data to register or reregister these products and there is a limited market potential once approved, many minor use pesticides are not being supported or are being voluntarily canceled for economic, not safety reasons. This bill offers several incentives for manufacturers to maintain and develop new safe and effective pesticides for minor uses without compromising food safety or adversely affecting the environment. This bill is similar to legislation that I cosponsored in the last Congress and to legislation now being considered within the House of Representatives. Legislation in the 103d Congress gained the support of 21 of my Senate colleagues while legislation pending in the House this year has already garnered 192 cosponsors. I have a long history of involvement in these often complex and challenging food safety and pesticide issues. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am hopeful that this year we will be able to finally see much needed reform of these food safety and pesticide statutes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and to recognize that the Delaney clause is far too rigid. We need to move toward the future in a scientifically sound way by removing the unduly restrictive Delaney clause. I ask unanimous consent that a summary and copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the welfare reform legislation before the Senate insists on more individual responsibility. It penalizes destructive behavior and it promotes work. The legislation provides new authority to the States, affirming federalism and allowing Governors to make bold reforms. This bill will reduce the Federal deficit. Nutrition assistance is a major part of our Nation's system of social programs. The legislation before us contains a modified form of an original bill approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee on June 14. All Republican members of the committee voted for the bill, along with one Democratic member. That bill, now part of the leadership proposal we are considering, makes [[Page S 11838]] dramatic changes in the food stamp program. These changes reflect the three goals of individual responsibility, State empowerment, and deficit reduction. First, the Agriculture Committee bill reduces the Federal deficit by $19.1 billion over the next 5 years, and $30.1 billion over 7 years. Part of these savings are obtained through a crackdown on fraud and food stamp trafficking. The majority of savings, however, result from benefit cutbacks, tighter eligibility rules, and policy reforms. The standard deduction that is used to calculate food stamp benefits will be lower under this bill than under current law. Similarly, the bill will pay food stamp benefits based on the thrifty food plan, and not 103 percent of that plan as is the case today. Second, this bill requires individuals to take more responsibility for their actions. The legislation withdraws benefits from able-bodied childless adults who do not work. It disqualifies any individual who voluntarily quits a job or reduces the number of hours worked. It denies benefits to anyone who violates an AFDC work requirement, and bars food stamps from increasing when a family's welfare check is cut because they failed to comply with other welfare program requirements, such as making sure children stay in school or receive immunization shots. This important policy change puts an end to the mixed message that our welfare system sends to recipients. Up to now, when a welfare recipient's cash benefits have been reduced as a penalty, his or her food stamps have automatically increased, partly offsetting the loss of income. For food stamp work requirements, the bill establishes new mandatory minimum disqualification periods for violators. States will have the authority to disqualify for longer periods. In sharp contrast to current law, this legislation will allow States to permanently disqualify three-time repeat violators. The bill will discourage teen pregnancy by requiring that minor parents living at home apply for benefits with their parents. In addition, the bill will place new responsibilities on anyone sponsoring a legal alien who then applies for food stamps. Third, the legislation before us will empower the States. States will have a broad range of new authorities to design simplified food stamp programs and conform procedures and rules for AFDC households. The bill will allow States to obtain waivers for welfare demonstration projects that reduce food stamp benefits or restrict eligibility. The bill also compels the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be more responsive to State waiver requests by imposing a strict turnaround time for initial responses to these requests, with automatic approval if USDA misses its deadline. Under this legislation, States will be able to pay wage subsidies in lieu of food stamps--innovative programs in which the amount of the food stamp benefit is paid to an employer who hires a recipient. The employer then passes the benefit along as a wage. Finally, the legislation allows States to choose an optional block grant instead of the regular food stamp program. States would be eligible for an amount equal to the higher of their 1994 food stamp funding level or the 1992-94 average. Seventy-five percent of the amount expended would have to be spent on food assistance, with the remainder to be spent on payments in return for work, work supplementation programs, other work-related initiatives, and administrative costs. The bill approved by the Agriculture Committee did not include the block grant option. Although several Senators on the committee supported block grants, a majority did not. I believe that the optional block grant that has been developed over the past several weeks gives States a fair choice. If they are concerned about the possibility of a demographic change or a large, recession-induced increase in their caseload, they may continue to participate in the Federal food stamp program, and benefit from all the flexibility provided in this bill. But if States prefer, they now have the ability to make a one-time choice of block-granted benefits. It is their decision. Mr. President, we should give States the opportunity to try new approaches. We must make it clear to recipients of public assistance that more will be expected of them. And we should spend less money on welfare. The legislation before us passes all three of these tests. I hope all Senators will support it.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on this Friday morning, many of my close friends and fellow members of Saint Luke's United Methodist Church are gathering in Indianapolis, IN, to honor the life of a very special public servant and leader in our State. The untimely loss of James Smith on July 10, 1995, will be felt throughout Indiana, just as his personal energy impacted so many people during his remarkable life. I enjoyed working with Jim during his early years of service to our State, when he worked as an assistant to Gov. Otis Bowen. His effective leadership in several roles in Indiana's State government throughout the 1970's earned the praise and support of both Governor Bowen and his successor, Governor Robert Orr. He won respect from all who followed his activities, both before and after he left State government. I was not surprised to see the law firm he helped found quickly develop into one of the largest firms in Indiana. I was proud to count Jim Smith as a friend ever since our early association. I will miss the enrichment I received from our visits together. My thoughts this morning, especially, are with his wife Susan, who not only served as Jim's partner professionally in Governor Bowen's administration and in their law firm, but also in their home raising five beautiful children. My prayers are for her renewed strength and courage as she faces most difficult times ahead.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold a full committee markup on welfare reform. The markup will be held on Wednesday, June 14, 1995, at 9 a.m. in SR-332. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, most Americans now recognize the need to reform our welfare system. U.S. welfare policy has encouraged dependency, [[Page S8099]] has failed to encourage work effort, and has contributed to runaway entitlement spending. These failures do not mean that we have been wrong to assist needy Americans. A just society makes provision for its less fortunate members. But what is the best way to do that? What policies offer the best prospect of helping the needy to become independent? What are the unintended consequences of the modern welfare state? What is the cost of the culture of dependency? These are questions with which we must grapple. Most accounts of the welfare reform debate focus solely on the prospect that someone's benefits will be reduced. That is the wrong question. The right question is: What will happen if we refuse to reform welfare because we are afraid of the political consequences? How many more generations of dependency will we foster? How many people will fail to break out of the welfare trap who otherwise might have gotten jobs, or started businesses, or sent children to college? Is compassion always and everywhere defined by spending more money? Our society's compassion must now be reflected in tough choices, not blank checks. It is easy to write repetitive stories about cuts in benefits. More understanding is required to note the effect of changing incentives, encouraging work effort, and insisting on independence. I chair the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which has jurisdiction over the Food Stamp program and child nutrition spending. We are not the primary committee of jurisdiction on welfare matters, but the programs we oversee are a vital part of the Nation's social safety net. Today, I am introducing legislation that represents my best effort at a consensus bill that reflects the range of views on our committees. That range is a broad one, comprising Senators who favor block grants and those who do not. Some committee members on both sides of the aisle and prepared for sharp reductions in nutrition spending, while other are not. I was prepared to act boldly. I agreed with many of our Nation's Governors that the States deserve the change to try new approaches to delivering nutrition assistance. The legislation I introduce today will not convert the Food Stamp Program to block grants. I made this decision consciously because I believe committee consensus is preferable to contention if the latter would divert us from the real issues. Welfare reform should not, at the end of the day, be measured by whether or not it converts all programs to block grants. Block grants are a means, not an end. Instead, I ask my colleagues to measure welfare reform proposals by these tests: Do they give States more freedom to try new approaches? Do they encourage work and responsibility? And do they reduce the runaway expenditure of taxpayer funds? I hope Senators will agree that the bill I introduce today does all these things. First, it gives the States wider latitude to reform the Food Stamp Program. The bill allows States to try a variety of approaches to delivering benefits, structuring incentives and encouraging independence. Many current Federal requirements are ended, and States are granted more authority to modify the program in light of their unique circumstances. Under this bill, States could restrict eligibility for benefits, create work supplementation initiatives where food stamp benefits would be used to leverage job incentives, and undertake other reforms. Second, the bill promotes work and responsibility. The bill will enforce strict work requirements, allow States to crack down on food stamp recipients who fail to pay child support or cooperate with the child support enforcement system, and put real sanctions on recipients who violate work requirements or voluntarily quit a job. Finally, this legislation will reduce Federal spending. It is designed to achieve approximately the level of savings in the budget resolution approved by the Senate. This legislation will pay food stamp benefits based on 100 percent of the low-cost thrifty food plan, instead of the present 103 percent. It will also modify income deductions and asset tests used in calculating eligibility and benefit levels. The bill achieves savings in other nutrition programs while retaining the Federal responsibility for these programs. For example, the legislation will reduce subsidies for meals served in day care homes in upper- and middle-income areas. Mr. President, a just nation does not cast its poor out on the street. But neither does it absolve them of personal responsibility. As we reform welfare programs, we must count the cost to both society and welfare recipients of retaining the old, failed system. That cost is too high. Instead, we must try new approaches and provide new incentives. Some may fail. But the greater failure of the old order is manifest. We owe it to every American to try new approaches and question old ways. We must enter the new century as a nation whose watchword is independence, not dependency. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the test of the bill I introduce, along with a summary of its provisions, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today the Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1995. In this bill, Senator Leahy and I have developed the boldest concepts for protecting our agricultural resource base and the environment since the 1985 farm bill. This legislation is based on simple but pivotal principles: First, we need to preserve stable funding to help farmers and ranchers meet environmental challenges. Second, the initiatives must be voluntary for producers and simple for them to participate in. Third, we must maximize the environmental benefits produced by each federal dollar expended. Fourth, conservation programs must be consistent with a more market- oriented farm economy. Specifically, we prefer land management options over land retirement. And within our land retirement initiative, the Conservation Reserve Program, we want to stress more tactical partial- field enrollments. Fifth, we need to address the breadth of contemporary environmental challenges--such as water quality--in addition to soil erosion. Our bill advances each of these principles. It will be the foundation of the conservation title of the 1995 farm bill. Let me address some specifics, beginning with the question of funding. Our bill calls for substantial, stable funding for conservation programs into the next century. We take the current funding levels for the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program and the various conservation incentive and cost-share initiatives--about $2.1 billion--and extend it annually through 2005. We also would make these programs mandatory in a budget sense and fund them through the Commodity Credit Corporation with strict annual caps. To ensure budget neutrality, we make offsetting reductions in discretionary accounts. Maintaining the conservation fund throughout the next 10 years will require a shift in budget priorities. My preference is to preserve conservation assistance while reducing costs of crop subsidy programs in order to meet our deficit reduction requirement. The Conservation Reserve Program has been successful and this bill would continue and improve it over the next 10 years. We allocate the entire Congressional Budget Office baseline, which declines from the current level of $1.8 to $1.2 billion in 2000, for the CRP. Successful as it is, the CRP has several shortcomings. Too much land that can be farmed without harming the environment is currently idled. Annual payments too often exceed local rental rates. And the CRP can be utilized much more fully to improve water quality. Our bill corrects these weaknesses. We direct the Secretary of Agriculture to enroll at least 4 million acres of land--primarily buffer strips along permanent water bodies and intermittent streams--for water quality purposes. We target only the most highly erodible land that cannot be farmed profitably using necessary management practices and is not eligible for incentive or cost-share assistance. And we impose new discipline on rental rates. Much has been made of the significant wildlife benefits of the CRP. While the CBO baseline and our stricter enrollment standards points to a small CRP in the future, I believe our bill will result in a program that, acre for acre, is actually more beneficial for wildlife. Among equivalent eligible offers to enroll land under the soil erosion and water quality criteria, preference will be given to offers that give greater wildlife benefits. And all CRP contract holders will receive guidance on management methods to promote beneficial stands of cover. I mentioned earlier that our conservation strategies must stress land management as opposed to land retirement. This legislation takes the best of our existing cost-share and incentive programs and combines them into a new, strengthened effort: The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP. This will streamline the process for farmers and ranchers to apply for assistance. It will eliminate overlaps between our current hodgepodge of assistance programs. And by making EQIP a mandatory budget initiative, it will end the year-to-year uncertainly that producers must face under the current discretionary funding process. The EQIP Program will also offer new incentives to livestock producers. Currently, less than a quarter of our conservation spending goes for livestock, even though there is a high correlation between agriculturally sourced water quality impairments and livestock operations. A 1993 report of the Environmental Protection Agency's Feedlot Workgroup indicates that feedlots are a more significant source of river impairments than storm sewers or industrial sources. Under EQIP, assistance for both crop and livestock producers would increase significantly and livestock would be eligible for half of the total funding. This is sound environmental policy that benefits all of agriculture. Let me list a few things we do not do in this bill. First, we create no new environmental mandates for farmers. It is very important that, as crop support levels decline, we not add any more compliance provisions to the commodity programs. In fact, farmers and ranchers need not participate in the programs to be eligible for our conservation programs. In addition, we do not permit any new economic use of Conservation Reserve Program lands. We can enroll all the land that truly deserves to be in the CRP with the budget baseline we have. As a result, we can avoid adverse effects to the cattle and forage industries that might result from expanded haying and grazing of CRP acres. Finally, this initial proposal does not make changes to our current wetland compliance provisions. Although Senator Leahy and I were able to agree on an overwhelming majority of conservation issues, we were unable to reach consensus on this front. I am fully aware of the controversy surrounding the swampbuster program and I recognize the need to improve it. I am committed to working with members of the Agriculture Committee to make wetlands regulation less burdensome. We must make swampbuster a fair and flexible program that can be described the same way as conservation compliance: A program that works and is supported by farmers. [[Page S7508]] Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today. It makes winners of both agriculture and the environment. I hope all Senators will agree that it builds on the substantial conservation gains made by farmers and ranchers in the last decade and helps them answer the environmental challenges of the new millennium. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 23, 1995 at 9:30 a.m., in SR-332, to discuss Federal Nutrition Programs.