Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, I was thanking the Senator from Minnesota for his graciousness, for his generosity of spirit, for his courtesy to the Senator from Kansas. I appreciate that very much, as the manager of the bill. I think what he suggested was eminently fair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I don't recall when the Senator began talking, but we were to go back on the bill at 10:30. I understand we are not on the bill. I was going to ask if the Senator would yield for that purpose.

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who seeks recognition on this. I think it would be appropriate to go to final wrap-up.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Iowa has the floor. I am just curious about how much time he might take, or could we interrupt the remarks and let the Senator from Indiana proceed?

Mr. COCHRAN. No. My question of the Senator was how much longer he thought he would take. This is for the purpose of advising my friend from Indiana how long he would sit on the floor and listen to your colloquy, or whatever it is the Senator intends to do, or for how long the Senator intends to do it. It is just a question. I am not suggesting the Senator does not have the right to talk all night, if he wishes.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his clarification.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Iowa asked unanimous consent before we permitted discussion of the Collins bill that he be recognized following the vote. I am rising to clarify the situation, and also to inquire how long the distinguished Senator is planning to speak at this point. I am hopeful that there will be time for the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, who is chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, to speak for about 30 minutes. He has to chair a committee hearing in the morning beginning at 9 o'clock and won't be available tomorrow morning. I am hopeful the Senator will either let Senator Lugar proceed now or after a reasonable time for the Senator to then be recognized for 30 minutes. That is the purpose of my inquiry of the Senator from Iowa. I did not object when the Senator sought unanimous consent to be recognized because I thought I had talked about 15 minutes and the Senator had talked about the same period of time, or maybe a little longer. That is the purpose of my inquiry.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand the parliamentary situation is that we are now back on the Agriculture appropriations bill. The pending amendment is the Cochran amendment to the Daschle amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am constrained to object to any request to speak in the morning. We have not had an announcement as to what time we are coming in or how the bill will be handled. The usual rules of seeking recognition I think probably will apply tomorrow.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, what is the request?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, be recognized for such time as he may consume.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Does that mean that the exact dollar amount set aside for each of the programs such as the Wetlands Restoration Program, the EQIP program--which is an emergency conservation program--emergency watershed program, all total $212 million in the bill?

Mr. COCHRAN. My colleague asked me whether the Congressional Budget Office had scored the amendment that I offered. I ask my colleague the same question: What does the Congressional Budget Office say the amendment that the Democratic leader has offered will cost the American taxpayer over the next few years?

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COCHRAN. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the items I discussed at $6.67 billion for fiscal year 2000, and the total cost during fiscal years 2000 to 2004 is scored at $6.979 billion.

Mr. COCHRAN. I would be happy to respond to the Senator.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as I understand the parliamentary situation at this time, pending before the Senate is a second-degree amendment to an amendment offered on behalf of the Democratic leader to provide disaster assistance and economic assistance to our Nation's farmers. The amendment, which is the amendment in the second degree offered by the majority leader on my behalf, provides a wide range of benefits to individual farmers and ranchers who, under the terms of this legislation, are eligible for disaster assistance because of economic losses and disasters that have occurred by reason of vagaries in the weather and other conditions that will cause these farmers to undergo unusual hardship. We think this amendment is better and a more sensitive approach to the real needs of those involved in production agriculture than the proposal coming from the Democratic leader. Here is why. Most of the funds that are appropriated in this amendment for economic and disaster assistance go directly to the agriculture producer who has been victimized by floods or drought or economic catastrophes affecting his ability to earn a profit this year. On the other hand, much of the assistance that is appropriated or funded in the Democrats' package goes to continue or expand Federal programs, to enlarge programs. In other words, the money is going to the Government to expand and administer programs that either have to work, in some cases, or really do nothing to improve the farmer's ability to derive income from his labor. So that is a major distinction that I hope Senators will consider as they try to decide which of these proposals to support. As Senators know, most of the funds that go to protect income, or support the production of agriculture commodities in our country, are in the form of assistance called AMTA payments. These payments are transition payments that were begun under the last farm bill to prepare farmers for the time when predictable subsidies under the old farm bill program are reduced and then finally eliminated. Over this 5-year period under this new farm law, the transition payments are made to help support farmers as they become accustomed to agriculture without the benefit of the old subsidy payments. Farmers are now free to make planting decisions, for example, for themselves, as indicated by the condition of the market and the likelihood of crops being productive and efficiently produced, rather than what the Government tells them they should produce under the restraints of Federal law. Many farmers are beginning to make these decisions and shift from one program crop to another, without running the risk of losing Federal Government support. In order to show that the economic conditions and the market conditions have been so severe as to cause farmers not to be able to operate profitably under the new transition payment system, that payment is doubled under the Cochran amendment. And so instead of receiving $5,000 as a transition payment, a person who is entitled to that benefit under existing law this year will get twice that amount as an economic assistance payment from the Federal Government. A total of $5.54 billion will be paid to agriculture producers for market transition payments under the Cochran amendment. This is a 100 percent increase in a producer's 1999 payment under the existing farm bill. Other benefits that are available to agriculture producers under this amendment would include $500 million in direct payments to soybean and oilseed producers; $350 million in assistance to livestock and dairy producers, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. The amendment would also suspend the budget deficit reduction assessment on sugar producers for the remainder of the farm bill, as long as no Federal budget deficit exists. There will be a direct payment provided in this amendment to producers of quota and non-quota peanuts, equal to 5 percent of the current loan rate. The Cotton Step Two Export Program is reinstated in this amendment. There is an increase in the current loan deficiency payment limit from $75,000 to $150,000. There is, additionally, a provision in this bill that expresses the sense of the Congress, encouraging the President to be more aggressive in strengthening trade negotiating authority for American agriculture and expressing the Congress' objectives for future agriculture trade negotiations. The amendment also requests that the President evaluate and make recommendations on the effectiveness of our existing export and food aid programs. If you add up all of the direct benefits that are payable, they have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as amounting to a total of $6.67 billion for fiscal year 2000. The added cost over the next 3 years, from 2000 to 2004, would add another $309 million to the cost of the bill, for a total of $6.979 billion in total cost from fiscal year 2000 to 2004, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Madam President, Senators will remember that when we first brought this bill from the committee to the floor of the Senate, there was a great deal of concern about whether or not there should be a disaster program included in a title of the bill. We had asked the administration to submit a budget request for any funds that were expected to be needed. We have had no response whatsoever from the administration to that request. We attached that as an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations. We discussed it on the floor of the Senate when this bill was before the Senate earlier, and I am very distressed that we have yet to hear any request made by the administration for this assistance. So in spite of the absence of cooperation in trying to identify and work together on a program that would be sensitive to the problems in production agriculture, we are moving to suggest to the Senate that this is a program that ought to be adopted. I have additional comments to make. I will be glad to respond to questions that may arise from Senators on the content of this legislation to try to answer any questions that others may have. But I know we will soon have a vote that is scheduled to occur on another bill that was debated in the Senate earlier today. In an effort to accommodate friends who have asked for time to talk on their amendment, I will yield the floor at this time so other Senators may speak.

Mr. COCHRAN. Emergency trade provisions, humanitarian assistance, cooperator program, for a total of $988 million; is that what the Senator is saying the CBO has verified the cost to be?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor and to support the passage of the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, S. 335. This legislation would establish new safeguards to protect consumers against deceptive and dishonest sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. The bill grants additional investigative and enforcement authority to the U.S. Postal Service to stop deceptive mailings, and it establishes standards for all sweepstakes mailings by requiring certain disclosures on each mailing. In the last Congress, our subcommittee examined the use of mass mail to deceive and defraud consumers. At the subcommittee's hearing, we heard how sweepstakes and other promotions were causing individuals to make unwanted or excessive purchases in the hope that the purchases would increase their chances of winning money or other prizes. Since conducting that hearing, the subcommittee has been flooded with stories from consumers all over the country who have lost thousands of dollars in some cases--sometimes their life savings--to deceptive mailing practices. But it is not just sweepstakes offers that deceive consumers. Some mailers imply an association with the Government, often enticing consumers to pay unnecessary fees. This bill will address several types of deceptive mailings, including sweepstakes and Government look-alike mailings. First, it will require sweepstakes mailings to display a statement that no purchase is necessary to enter the contest and that a purchase will not improve the chances of winning. Other disclosures will also be required, including the sponsor of the sweepstakes and the principal place of business or an address at which the sponsor can be reached, and the estimated odds of winning each prize and the estimated value of each prize. In addition, all terms and conditions of the sweepstakes promotion, including the rules and entry procedures for the sweepstakes, will be required on each mailing. Second, the bill will expand the authority of the U.S. Postal Service by granting the Postal Inspection Service subpoena authority, nationwide stop-mail authority, and the ability to impose civil penalties of up to $1 million for the first offense and $2 million for a violation of an existing order. Finally, the bill will strengthen existing law regarding Government look-alike mailings by requiring disclaimers on any mailings that might be interpreted as implying a connection to the Federal Government. This legislation was reported out of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services on April 12 and reported unanimously by the Committee on Governmental Affairs on May 20. It has the support of the U.S. Postal Service, a number of consumer groups, and the American Association of Retired Persons. I commend the work of the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in crafting this legislation to curb deceptive mailings. As chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Collins has thoroughly examined the issue, and I applaud her important efforts in developing this bill and her continuing efforts to protect consumers. The distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, Senator Levin, has also supported this initiative, and we appreciate his assistance. This bill takes an important step toward the prevention of deception in sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. I urge Senators to support it.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his kind remarks. We appreciate very much his cosponsorship of the resolution.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am submitting today a resolution which commends General Wesley K. Clark for his outstanding service to the United States. I am pleased to be joined by Mr. McCain and Mr. Stevens as cosponsors of the resolution. I was sorry to learn from the Wednesday morning's newspapers that General Clark would be leaving his current post, where he serves simultaneously as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and as Commander-in-Chief of the United States European Command, before his tour was scheduled to end. When General Clark retires next year, the United States will be losing one of its finest officers. And I say that not just because of what he just accomplished in successfully leading NATO forces into battle for the first time, but because of the exemplary record General Clark compiled over 33 years of service to our Nation. Wes Clark graduated first in his class from West Point in 1966, and was selected to attend Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. After graduating from Oxford General Clark distinguished himself in Vietnam, where he commanded a mechanized infantry company in combat. General Clark went on to command two other companies, as well as an armor battalion at Fort Carson, Colorado, a brigade in the 4th Infantry Division, also at Fort Carson, the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, the 1st Calvary Division at Fort Hood, Texas, and the United States Southern Command, headquartered in Panama. I won't list the numerous staff jobs in which General Clark has served, but I do point out that General Clark, as the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff, was integral to the formulation of the Bosnian Peace Accords, negotiated in Dayton. In reviewing the numerous positions General Clark has held since he graduated from West Point, it is beyond question that Wes Clark is an officer who has served our Nation well during the last 33 years. I recently had a chance to visit with General Clark at his headquarters in Brussels. Despite months of getting little sleep, I'm told it was about four hours per night, General Clark was able to explain to me clearly and in detail our military operations in Kosovo and Serbia. His grasp of every nuance of every plan and option, was evident, and only reinforced his reputation for thoroughness. Nothing demonstrates his reputation for thoroughness and resourcefulness. Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than one simple fact: In an environment where General Clark was operating under severe constraints, he led NATO forces to victory. He was tireless; he was imaginative; and ultimately, he was victorious. This resolution commends General Clark and expresses the Senate's gratitude to him not just because of his recent service, but because of his lifetime of service. General Clark deserves recognition not only for achieving results, but also for his personal integrity. His record of saying what he believes should be said without respect to whether that is what other people necessarily want to hear is an example that others should seek to emulate. General Wes Clark has had a career distinguished by exemplary and dedicated service to our Nation. I urge the adoption of the Senate of this resolution.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, further, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this morning's report contained in the Washington Times written by Bill Gertz describing the issue and the President's actions also be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business and that the time I consume be counted against the time on the resolution.