Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we begin consideration again today of the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Yesterday we were on that report for 3\1/2\ hours and had a full discussion of views on the question of whether or not the conference report should be adopted. I was pleased to see this morning an assessment of the situation by the Washington Post, in an editorial entitled, ``The Appropriations Game.'' I read excerpts from that editorial: In the agricultural bill, an election-year bidding war has broken out between the parties over aid to distressed farmers. This is one from which the president should back away . . . The Democrats want not just to give a larger amount but to do so in such a way as to repudiate the last farm bill . . . The administration earlier in the year rightly resisted the position it has now adopted; it should revert. That is the end of the quotation from the Washington Post editorial. I think it appropriately points out the difficulty we face in confronting a threat from the President to veto this conference report. It is not just about money. The President is suggesting, through his Secretary of Agriculture and through the Democratic leadership, that this conference report is unacceptable, not because it doesn't appropriate enough money, but because it doesn't change the policy that was agreed upon in the 1996 farm bill and signed by this President. It changes a fundamental policy of setting Government loan rates and using them to encourage the planning of some five or more specific commodities. To get away from that old way of Government support, the Congress and the President, the administration, worked together to develop an alternative, a farm policy that would be driven by the dictates of the market, the demands of the market, the signals that the market would send to producers to indicate what prices might likely be during a crop year, and farmers themselves would make the choice as to what they would plant. Some call this Freedom to Farm--freedom to plant what you want to rather than what the Government dictates you have to plant in order to be eligible for Government support. To make this a transition where the Government wasn't going to just say, ``OK, everybody, you're on your own, farmers are on their own,'' there would be a series, over 5 years, of transition payments made. Interestingly enough, as pointed out by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, yesterday during the debate, this year's transition payments are going to be higher. It was assumed by the writers of that policy, the legislative committees, that at first farmers would really need to have higher payments. They were very prescient figuring this out and including that provision in the farm bill. What we have suggested in our disaster assistance plan is, not to change the policy, but to provide bonus payments under the market transition formulas to increase the amount that all producers who are eligible for these payments would receive to help deal with the income losses that are occurring because of lost markets in Asia and elsewhere during this global economic crisis. Then there are those who have sustained weather-related disasters in certain areas, which has meant lost crops, not just lost income, not just diminished yields, which the increased market transition payments will help deal with. But, for those who have suffered crop losses, no loan rate is going to help them. There is nothing to put under the loan. The Washington Post points out, correctly, that we are not just in a bidding war on this bill--we are out of sorts because the Democrats keep advertising that their plan is worth $7 billion plus, and the Republicans only $4 billion; and therefore, the Democrats have a preferable plan and one that would provide more benefits--but the fact is, you change the policy instead of providing direct disaster assistance and you are not necessarily delivering money to those people who need the disaster benefits. The $4.2 billion plan is a direct assistance plan to those who qualify because they have suffered losses, plus the additional amount that is included in the transition bonuses. We continue to debate the issue. I am hopeful the Senate will approve the conference report. We have voted twice in the Senate, at the Democrats' insistence, on lifting the loan caps under the 1996 farm bill, and that has been rejected each time. We have voted twice on it, and twice it has been rejected. Now the administration is saying if you don't reconsider those two decisions, put that or something similar in the farm bill, in the disaster program, then the President will veto the bill. This is a $59.9 billion bill--$59.9 billion. We are talking about a very small part, a disagreement on a matter of policy where the Democrats are trying to get the Congress to be required by this President to repudiate a part of the 1996 farm bill so some Senators, I suppose, can go home and say, ``I told you so; we had a better bill,'' even though it has been pointed out clearly that under the old farm bill, under the old policy that they are trying to reinstate pro tanto--a good law school phrase--they would be getting less money. Under the Freedom to Farm bill, all farmers are getting more money from the Government as transition payments than they would have been eligible to receive under the 1996 farm bill which they want to exhume, resurrect, breathe life into, and put back on the books. That is not a very impressive proposal. That is not a very attractive proposal, and this Senate ought to reject it. I hope there will be votes enough to override the President's veto. It has been done before on an agriculture appropriations bill. It was a long time ago. But you usually don't see a President vetoing an agriculture appropriations bill. I hope somebody will get around to pointing out what all is in this bill for production agriculture, for the women, infants, and children feeding program, for food stamps for people who are unable to provide for their own nutrition needs, for school lunch and breakfast programs. I just came from a conference with the House on a reauthorization bill for child nutrition programs. We have some very important needs that are met in this legislation. Close to 65 percent of the funding in this appropriations bill that we are approving today goes to help people provide for their own nutrition needs. The President may call this a veto of a disaster assistance program, but that is one very small part of what he is saying no to. He is rejecting the hard work of many Members of this body and the other body as well in crafting a bill that meets the need for agriculture research, for rural water and sewer system loans and grants, for economic development initiatives in small towns and rural communities throughout the United States. If one looks at the amount of money that goes to support production agriculture in this legislation, it is minuscule compared to the total amount being spent on other programs. Many in agriculture have said that this bill should not even be named an agriculture appropriations bill--that there should be a more accurate way of describing the funding that is contained in the bill. It doesn't go to agriculture, or at least not most of it, very little of it, as a percentage of the total amount appropriated. But the President is willing to put at risk those programs that are funded in this bill to accommodate the interests of a few Senators who are suggesting that this is an unfair, an insensitive approach to providing disaster assistance to those who have suffered weather-related disasters and suffered because of a downturn in the world economic situation. We are confronting a serious crisis in American agriculture. This bill responds to that crisis by providing direct assistance to those who have been harmed and who are eligible for transition payments and weather-related disaster benefits. I suggest the Washington Post is right about this, and to repeat what they say this morning in this editorial, this is an election-year bidding war from which the President should back away. The Democrats want not just to give a larger amount but to do so in such a way as to repudiate the last farm bill. . . . The administration earlier in the year rightly resisted the position it has now adopted; it should revert. And so the observers at the Washington Post have figured this out. I hope that Senators will resist the entreaties being made to vote against this bill. This conference report ought to be adopted. It is a fair allocation of resources across the programs that are funded in the bill. I mentioned the Department of Agriculture programs that are funded in the bill that the President is willing to put at risk and to create the uncertainty and the anxieties among those who are expecting benefits at the beginning of this fiscal year. Right now we are operating under a continuing resolution. To veto the bill creates more delay, more uncertainty, more anxiety. It puts in jeopardy the very benefits we are trying to make available for people now. Farmers need help now. They are beginning to be skeptical of the whole process and promises that are made by the Federal Government. I would like to do something to correct that. I would like to make sure that Government is trusted again to do what it promises to do and what it says it is willing to do, and many of us have been trying to put together a package of benefits that makes sense, is supported by the facts, can be administered. We provide additional funds in this bill for the administration of the program. And it is going to cost more. We have tried to work with the administration to determine the amount needed so that there will not have to be extra burdens assumed at county offices throughout the country, where there will be an increase in the workload, where there will be more demands made on the administration, the farm service agency in particular. We have tried to cooperate with this administration. It was our recommendation at the conference that these funds be added to help the administration deal with it. And now they turn right around and say, ``We're going to veto that bill because it is inconsistent with the proposal made by Senate Democrats on the Senate floor,'' that was twice rejected by the Senate. ``If you don't include the disaster bill the way they want it written or in that respect, then we're going to veto this entire bill.'' This entire bill, Mr. President, provides $56 billion in funding for a wide range of programs, most of them nutrition assistance, as I mentioned. So I hope the people in the country will stop and think what this administration is about to do to you if you are depending upon and looking to the Federal Government for support in nutrition programs. If you have free and reduced lunch and breakfast programs in your schools, they are not going to be funded on time because this President says, ``I'm vetoing this bill because it doesn't satisfy a few Senate Democrats.'' That is not only bad politics, that is bad Government, and it ought to be repudiated by the Congress. If the President does insist on carrying out this promise or this threat to veto the bill, I hope the Senate will--if the House can--overturn the veto and not sustain the President's action. The Washington Post is right, the President ought to go back to the position he earlier had taken. The President signed the 1996 farm bill, and now he is suggesting that we need to go back and rewrite portions of it and that that will satisfy the needs of production agriculture, that that would be a better deal for farmers. The fact of the matter is, if we start going down that old road again, we will have an unworkable and unpredictable level of support from the Federal Government. Now farmers know what the Federal Government is going to provide in transition payments that are outlined in legislation over a 5-year period. Farmers can look at that. They can make judgments about what is best for their own farm operation, what the market conditions are, so that they can make decisions based on what is best for them at that farm in that crop year, given their own economic conditions as to what they will do. They will not lose benefits because they make a decision to change the crop they are planting. They would under the old law. If you do not plant that same crop that you are eligible for, you lose your eligibility for any assistance from the Government. And another thing. If you do not make a crop, you cannot put any crop in the loan. You cannot put an empty basket under the loan program that the Democrats are trying to resurrect. So if you would--like you have in southern Georgia--have crop losses, and you just plowed up a field, and you did not even try to harvest it because it was burned up, increasing the loan rate would not help you--not a bit. So my point is, the Democrats' plan is not all that it is cracked up to be. It is more an expression of frustration. And I sympathize with the frustration in many parts of the country. It is an effort to grasp at some straw in the wind and hold out the hope that this is going to make everything right. We are doing a very workmanlike job, in my view, of bringing together all of the different problems in agriculture and trying to design a program of benefits and assistance that helps farmers make it to the next year, helps compensate them to the extent that some will be spared going into bankruptcy or having to sell their farms at a forced sale. And it is that bad in some areas. We think this is a balanced approach, not only for this disaster assistance program that is funded in this bill to the extent of $4.2 billion. That is in addition to all the other transition payments that we are providing under the existing law. And an option to obtain an accelerated payment of next year's market transition payment, that is available now in October because of a bill that was passed just recently. We think the bill itself, the entire conference report, justifies the support of this Senate and an overwhelming vote to approve it and to send it to the President. Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I want to point out that this is just one aspect of what is being done or what is attempted to be done by this Congress to help the outlook for farming in America and in agriculture. Our economy--that is one of the most successful of any sectors of our economy in terms of its ability to export, to generate income for people not just on the farm but at the store, driving trucks in the transportation system, the inputs that go into production agriculture, the equipment that is purchased, the seeds, all the rest that go into this giant part of our economy--is very important to our country. We generate a positive trade balance. I think this year it is going to be almost $20 billion in trade surplus. This is comparing the amount and the value of exports with imports of agriculture and food products. The House just recently passed a tax bill, reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee. It was my hope that we could take that bill up here and pass it in the Senate, because it delivers to farmers and farm families some new tax benefits that can help them in this time of crisis on the farm and would be good policy changes for the future, one of which permits a 5-year carryback of operating losses. Another makes permanent the income averaging provision of the more recent tax bill that was signed into law. Another accelerates the phasing in of exemptions of inheritance tax and gift tax for small businesses and farms. That is very helpful to farmers and farm families. Another provides 100 percent deductibility of the costs of self- employed health insurance, health insurance for those people who work for themselves. In the past, they weren't able to deduct the costs of that health insurance. Under the bill that was reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee and passed by the other body, the total costs of that premium could be deducted from income tax. We should make that the law now. Farmers need that now. Farm families need that benefit now. Because of a threat by the Democrat minority, we can't call that bill up. We are told there will be an objection. And if a motion is made to proceed to consider the House bill, 60 votes would be required to shut off debate on the motion to proceed. So that bill is unlikely to be considered by the Senate, we are told, because of those objections and that resistance. Again the President said, ``If you pass it, I will veto that.'' So farmers ought to know where the problem is. They are being told with big speeches out here and a lot of charts that the Democrats are the farmers' best friend. The evidence is piling up on the other side of that argument. I think it is going to become very, very clear that that is not the case. Here is another example. We have been told that American agriculture is suffering right now--unfairness in the international marketplace. People are erecting barriers to trade while we are trying to sell more in the market or break into a new market for agriculture products and foodstuffs, that we are running into barriers of one kind or another, and that the importation of certain foodstuff--cattle, wheat--from Canada violates existing rules of fair trade in this hemisphere. For months, the administration has done absolutely nothing that I know of to try to deal with that situation. One thing they asked last year of the Congress was to enact fast- track negotiating authority for the administration so agreements to adjust these problems, to resolve the difficulties, could be negotiated and worked out. Congress would make a commitment that if fair agreements were worked out we would take them up under fast-track procedures and vote them up or down. So the Speaker of the House, as we were working to put together the disaster assistance program, agreed he would call up the fast-track authority legislation in the House for a vote; the Senate has acted. The House couldn't pass it because the Democrats wouldn't vote for it. A huge number of Democrats voted against it. The President, apparently without the ability to lead on that issue in the House, couldn't turn out the votes to pass the legislation he said was important, he said was needed to help agriculture. The Republican leadership called it up and most of them voted for it. I am suggesting that is another example of a problem that we have here in the government. I am not trying to put this into a partisan debate to say that the Republicans are right on everything and the Democrats are wrong; but I am pointing out these facts that exist in the context of trying to do something to help farmers and help agriculture. Most people live outside the United States, and if the growth is going to be achieved in agriculture sales and we are going to see increases in incomes and prices, we are going to have to sell more of what we produce in the export market. Mr. President, 95 percent of the people in this world live outside the United States. It is that area of the world where the population is growing the fastest. The needs are greater for foodstuffs. I hope, as Senators look at this problem and try to decide whether we are doing the right thing or not by approving this bill, they will recognize we can't solve every problem that this sector has in one bill. But this is a very positive step toward dealing with the real crisis that exists out there in agriculture today. I am hopeful that the Senate will vote for this conference report and that we will have a resounding vote to overturn and override the President's veto, if he insists on continuing down this path. It is wrong. It is not justified. I hope he will change his mind. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Idaho such time as he may consume.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Senator Bumpers is correct. I strongly urge the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service and the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to continue working together to establish a reasonable division of effort consistent with a sound research agenda. National swine center

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Utah is correct that here are some unique circumstances in this situation. I hope the Department will take into consideration the impacts of visitation on the local communities and the limited tax base in Daggett County, as well as the current financial obligations of the communities involved. The Department should be as flexible as possible when considering this application in order to provide a safe source of culinary water for the community as well as the visitors to the area.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, and during any votes that may occur in relation to this measure: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, pending before the Senate at this time is the conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. We present this conference report for the Senate's approval this afternoon. The agreement provides total new budget authority of $55.7 billion for programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-- except for the Forest Service, which is funded by the Interior appropriations bill--the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm credit system. This is $6 billion more than the fiscal year 1998 enacted level; it is $1.9 billion less than the President's request level; it is $192 million less than the House-passed bill, and it is $1.1 billion less than the Senate-passed bill level. The changes that were made in conference on mandatory funding requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, principally reflecting a $2.6 billion lower estimate for Food Stamp Program funding requirements, higher Child Nutrition Program expenses, and a $7.6 billion increase in the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. The conference report also provides an additional $4.2 billion in emergency appropriations to assist agricultural producers and others who have suffered financial hardship due to adverse weather conditions and loss of markets. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total discretionary spending for fiscal year 1999 of $13.651 billion in budget authority and $14.050 billion in outlays. These amounts are consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations established for this conference agreement under the Budget Act. It was a very difficult conference. As Members may recall, a number of legislative provisions were added to the bill when it was considered in the Senate in July. Not only did the conference committee have to reach agreement with the House on these issues, but it had to resolve funding differences within a more constrained discretionary spending allocation for the conference than originally established in the Senate bill. Special recognition is due and deserved by the ranking member of the subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. In addition, the chairman of the House subcommittee, Congressman Skeen from New Mexico, and ranking minority member of the House subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur from Ohio, turned in hard work and cooperated with our efforts to make this conference agreement possible. The report includes credit relief for farmers, a 6-month extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact, sanctions relief for exports to India and Pakistan, a waiver of the statute of limitations for certain discrimination claims filed against the Department of Agriculture, and a number of other legislative provisions that were included in the Senate and House-passed bills. In addition, at the request of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, chaired by Senator Lugar here and Congressman Smith in the House, the conference report includes a moratorium on the rulemaking authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over swaps and derivatives, as well as language requested by the administration authorizing the creation of an Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs position at the Department of Agriculture. That change also had the approval of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over that subject. During consideration of the bill in the Senate, an amendment was adopted providing increased funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative. A major portion of this additional spending was offset by an ``assessment'' on the purchasers and importers of tobacco. This was subsequently determined by the House Ways and Means Committee to be a ``tax,'' and therefore off limits to the Appropriations Committee and was not included in the conference report. I am pleased to report to the Senate, however, that the conference report provides increased funding of $51.9 million for activities and programs which are part of the administration's Food Safety Initiative. In addition, the conference report provides $609 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an agency critical to maintaining the safety of our food supply. That is $20 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and $460 million more than the President requested in his budget. As most of my colleagues are aware, one of the major differences between the House and Senate-passed bill was a House bill provision to prevent fiscal year 1999 funding for the new Competitive Agriculture Research Program established by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. I did not support the proposal to remove or prevent the funding going forward as directed in that legislation. However, with a total discretionary budget authority allocation for the conference that was $64 million below the level we had for the Senate bill, it was a House position that the Senate conferees had little choice but to accept. Without that offset, drastic cuts would have been necessary in funding for other discretionary programs and activities in the bill. In view of this 1-year delay in funding for the new Agriculture Research Competitive Grant Program, the conference provided increased appropriations for existing agricultural research programs. Here are some examples: There is an appropriation of $782 million for the Agriculture Research Service. That represents a $38 million increase from the 1998 fiscal year level, and it is $14 million more than was included in the Senate-passed bill. There is total funding of $481 million for research and education activities of the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service. That is $50 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and it is $48 million more than was in the Senate-passed bill. Included in this amount is a 7-percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 level for payments under the Hatch Act, cooperative forestry research, payments to the 1890 and 1994 institutions, including Tuskegee and animal and health disease grants. Also included is a $22.1 million increase for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. In addition, the bill recommends $434 million for extension activities which preserves the 3-percent increase recommended by the Senate for Smith-Lever formula funds, as well as extension payments to the 1994 and 1890 institutions, including Tuskegee University. Approximately $36.1 billion, close to 65 percent of the total new budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the school lunch and breakfast programs. The Senate receded to the House- recommended appropriations level for the WIC program because recent data on actual participation rates and food package costs indicate that this amount should be sufficient to maintain current program participation levels in fiscal year 1999. For farm assistance programs, including the Farm Service Agency and farm ownership and operation loan subsidies, the conference report provides $1.1 billion in appropriations. Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service total $793 million, $9 million more than the House bill level and $1 million more than the level recommended by the Senate. For rural economic and community development programs, the conference report provides appropriations of $2.2 billion to support a total loan level of $6.2 billion. Included in this amount is $723 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, $583 million for the rental assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of $4.25 billion. A total of $1.2 billion is provided for foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $136 million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a total program level of $1.1 billion for the P.L. 480 Food for Peace Program. Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is $977 million, $11.5 million more than the level recommended by the House and $24.5 million more than the Senate bill level, along with an additional $132 million in Prescription Drug Act and $14 million in mammography clinics user fee collections. Included in the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is a $20 million increase for food safety. For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $61 million is provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. Titles XI-XIII of this conference report provide emergency relief to agricultural producers and others who have suffered weather-related and economic losses. As Members will recall, a number of amendments were adopted to this bill when the Senate considered it in July to address disaster-related requirements with the understanding that additional relief would be necessary once actual losses were determined by the Department of Agriculture and a supplemental request was submitted by the Administration. No request was submitted to the Congress until September 23. On September 23, the Administration submitted a $1.8 billion budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs. In the interim, the Republicans released a $3.9 billion relief package to assist agricultural producers. This emergency agricultural relief package is included in this conference report, along with additional emergency supplemental appropriations, to make a total of $4.2 billion in emergency assistance available. A total of $1.5 billion is made available to assist producers who have been hit by crop losses in 1998, and an additional $675 million for producers who have suffered from multiple-year crop losses. Also included is $175 million for emergency livestock feed assistance, and $1.65 billion to assist producers with market losses. In addition, the conference report provides temporary recourse loans for honey and mohair; $5 million for cotton indemnity payments; an increase of $25 million for the Food for Progress program to help move more grain out of the country; and expanded non-insured crop assistance for raisin producers. Additional supplemental emergency appropriations provided by the conference report include the $40 million to cover additional costs to the Farm Service Agency of administering this assistance, $10 million for the Forestry Incentives Program; and $31 million in subsidy appropriations to fund an additional $541 million in farm operating loans. Madam President, this conference report was filed on Friday and was passed by the House of Representatives that day by an overwhelming vote of 333 yeas to 53 nays. Senate passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to the President for signature into law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Many of our farmers and ranchers are facing the worst crisis in agriculture that they can remember. The economic collapse in Asia has resulted in lost markets. Producers in some states have suffered severe weather conditions. Others have been hit hard by crop diseases. The farmers need help now, and it is time to quit playing politics with disaster relief and adopt this conference report. Madam President, this is the last Agriculture Appropriations bill my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, will manage in the Senate after serving on the Appropriations Committee for 20 years and this Subcommittee for 13 years. Senator Bumpers has been an advocate of American agriculture and a proponent of the programs in this bill to improve the quality of life and help bring jobs to rural areas. His expertise and many contributions to this process and this bill will indeed be missed. In summary, let me point out, Madam President, that there has been raised the specter of a Presidential veto over this conference report because of the inadequacy of the provision relating to disaster assistance payments. I am very disturbed by that suggestion, and I hope that it is more rumor than promise. I know the President spent some time on Saturday in his weekly radio address speaking to that subject. I recall that 2 weeks ago, I was asked to deliver the Republican response to the President's weekly radio address, and my subject was the need for a more aggressive and meaningful disaster assistance program for farmers. I think everyone can agree that both the President and the Congress have been speaking out and making very clear the fact that we need a helpful, sensitive, generous program of disaster assistance to help deal with the realities of weather-related disasters that have struck many parts of the country, market loss problems because of the Asian economic crisis, and other factors that have worked together to make this a very difficult year for agriculture. The question is, Are we going to resolve this in a way that is consistent with the legislative process that makes sense for farmers, that serves to establish policies that are thoughtful and consistent with the needs of American agriculture, or are we going to continue to treat this as a political football and just kick it around and have us skirmish every day or every week over this issue, leading to delay, leading to uncertainties, leading to anxieties? Farmers in America certainly deserve better. I would like just for a moment or two to think back on the date when we had the bill on the floor of the Senate and the subject of disaster assistance was first raised. We adopted in the Senate a sense-of-the- Senate resolution calling on the President and the Congress to work together to come up with a proposal that would meet the needs for emergency action to respond ``to the economic hardships facing agriculture producers and their communities.'' The Senate adopted that on July 15 by a vote of 99 to 0. The next day, there was an amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and others who suggested we establish a $500 million indemnity program to compensate farmers for income losses that had been suffered due to various adverse conditions--weather and otherwise--throughout the country, although mainly the benefits were directed to the upper plains and other selected areas, not countrywide benefits or a program designed to be national in scope. During my remarks on that occasion, I recall on the Senate floor saying that we needed to have the President and the Department of Agriculture get involved and provide the Congress with a complete and accurate assessment of the funds that were needed for a program of this kind. We hadn't had a proposal from the administration for any specific benefit program for agriculture, although there had been meetings on the Hill with farm groups, with Senators and Congressmen trying to, first, get the facts and get a sense of what the agriculture leadership throughout the country thought would be an appropriate response by the Federal Government. There was no question at the time we were debating the bill that there was great interest in developing a disaster assistance program to meet the needs of American agriculture. As a matter of fact, during the discussion, I asked Senators if they had any better ideas, if they had suggestions for anything other than this $500 million indemnity program, and no one came forward to offer any amendments and no one expressed opposition to adopting that amendment. We checked with the legislative chairman in the Senate, and others, and without objection, we suggested that the Senate adopt the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota on a voice vote, and that is what we did. We accepted the amendment. After that was done, it became clear that through gathering information, that the situation was more widespread. I remember going to Georgia, for example, with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell. I had an opportunity to meet with farmers in southern Georgia and became convinced that we had a problem that was bigger than the upper plains and Texas. Everybody knew about the drought in Texas and the severe complications that were resulting from that for agriculture producers and ranchers in that area. But I do not think it was well known that in south Georgia, which had had a series of weather-related disasters over a period of years, the agriculture sector there was really hurting. And the $500 million indemnity program, suggested by the Senators from North Dakota and others, was not going to be sufficient to deal with that problem and others as well. I know in my State of Mississippi, for example, when I was home right after we adopted this bill in July--we had a break during the August recess--I had an opportunity to visit some areas of my State that were devastated because of isolated weather patterns that had ruined corn crops in the northwest part of Mississippi, and others had been damaged to the extent that diseases were infesting the crops. Aflatoxin was attacking the corn crops. There was no provision in any Federal disaster assistance program for yield losses, for crop losses. Those who were suggesting an indemnity program based on lifting loan caps had to realize that was not going to help somebody who had a total crop failure. It would not help them a bit. So we came back, started working on a new proposal, got with the leadership of the House and Senate, and asked the administration they were going to request supplemental funding. They did come back with a $1.8 billion supplemental budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs, without a lot of specificity about how those benefits would be determined, how the eligibility would be determined, who would administer the program. But, nonetheless, it was a step in the right direction, and I applauded the President for responding in that way. But based on that supplemental request--and working with the knowledge that other Members had generated from their States--we proposed to the conference committee a $4.1 billion disaster assistance program, and it was accepted in the conference committee with some changes. We accepted some amendments proposed by House Members in conference. We added some money proposed by the Senate in response to specific amendments that were urged in conference to the managers' proposal. So the end result was the conference committee agreed to provide emergency benefits totaling about $4.2 billion. So I come to the Senate today very pleased to be able to report that, instead of a $500 million indemnity program that the Senate adopted as a way to deal with the crisis in agriculture, working with farmers, producers, and ranchers from around the country, and other Members of the Congress, including the House, we now have a conference report that is much more generous, much more responsive to the real needs that exist in our country today in production agriculture, and designed to more nearly bring farmers to a point where they can continue to operate without going broke, without the devastating effects that would have been the reality of the situation had not this package of changes been agreed upon. We hear now that the Democratic leadership has urged the President to veto the bill. And I got a letter suggesting that he would if the conference agreement on disaster assistance was inconsistent with the proposal just recently made by the Democratic leader of the Senate to remove the loan caps under the current farm program for the commodities that are subsidized, in effect, by the Federal Government--no ifs, ands, buts about it. The letter said--and I took this up with the Secretary of Agriculture to be sure I understood that that was the meaning--that the President said he would veto the bill if the conference report was inconsistent with a proposal made by the Democratic leader to remove the loan caps for those commodities that are subsidized by the Government. I am very disappointed by that. I certainly hope that there is room for the President to change his mind on that subject, because it seems to me that rather than argue over whether or not this program is really going to do a good job and is thoughtfully crafted to try to put farmers back on their feet who have been devastated by bad weather and market conditions beyond their control, it just seems to me that this is not an appropriate response for the President to be making, given the other opportunities for positive things. Here are some examples of positive things that I think could be done which are beyond the jurisdiction of this committee today that brings you this conference report. The House of Representatives just passed recently a tax bill making a lot of changes in the Tax Code, but I specifically recall that some of those tax changes are designed to benefit farmers and farm families, and I am told that we are not going to have a chance to vote on that tax bill here in the Senate because we cannot get the bill cleared to bring up. We cannot get the House-passed tax bill cleared. So in order to bring it up, the majority leader would have to move to the consideration of the bill, the motion would become debatable, and then in order to get the bill on the floor for consideration and debate and passage, 60 votes to invoke cloture would have to be undertaken because the Democrats are promising to filibuster the bill. Here are the changes that it bothers me we will not even get a chance to approve that would help farmers. There is a 5-year net loss carryback of losses that you can carry back and set against income for 5 previous years. That is in the House- passed bill. The House-passed bill makes permanent income averaging, which permits farmers and ranchers to average income, high years against low years, and even out the tax burden, which is very beneficial to many. There is a provision that makes deductible, to 100 percent of the cost, health insurance premiums by those who are self-employed. If you are in agriculture and you have a farm and you are your own boss, under this change you will be able to deduct 100 percent of the cost of your health insurance. That helps farmers. That helps farm families. There is also an acceleration of the exemption for death taxes and gift taxes. One of the most difficult things facing agriculture today is the obligation to come up with cash money to pay the Federal Government so-called inheritance taxes on the death of a family member who has an interest in the land or the other property that goes into making up the decedent's estate. We have passed rules that phase in some higher exemptions for small farms and for businesses. What this House-passed bill does is accelerate the phasing in of those exemptions. That would be a big help to many farm families who are going to have to liquidate assets in real estate to pay death taxes. Another thing that this administration has been slow to react to is the trade problems that we are having in this hemisphere, with Canada, with Mexico, and beyond, barriers to trade so that our farmers and our exporters are having to deal with unfair tariff situations and other difficulties that are erected to keep America from selling what we are producing in the world marketplace and at the same time importing, in violation of some existing rules, I am told, some foodstuffs, live cattle, from other countries. Finally the administration is beginning to act. We see the Trade Representative engaging Canada in trade talks now about steps that can be taken to solve the problems that have developed in that area. But we were hearing this on the Senate floor and urging the administration to take action. Being the chief negotiator in the executive branch, the President has an obligation to assume some leadership. Frankly, there has been a breakdown in leadership on that subject. We hope we haven't waited too late to make changes and reach agreements and work out problems in the trade area for the farmers who have suffered this year. That is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to include direct payments that are bonus payments under the transition. We think the market transition program to compensate producers directly for income losses due to the economic crisis and trade problems that we have is very important. The administration does not propose and has not suggested that as an appropriate step to aid America's farmers. I make those comments, Madam President, not to pick a fight with anybody here on the floor of the Senate today, but to simply express my concern that we not see this bill held up, delayed, postponed, vetoed, whatever may happen to it, because of an interest in being able to say the Democrats are for a $7 billion disaster program, the Republican bill is only $4 billion. I bet it will be the same folks who said we want $500 million in an indemnity program to help meet the needs of the agriculture crisis. That is what the story was in July. We all agreed at that time that was probably temporary, that more needs to be done. So I am not belittling that suggestion. It was the suggestion on the floor of the Senate at the time and no one had any better idea at that time. Since then it seems we have been engaged in a show of one-upsmanship. The Republicans then come up with, with Democrat input in many cases, this $4 billion program of disaster assistance. Now, all of a sudden, that is not enough; we need $7 billion. How much has the President requested? I have the exact amount: $1.76 billion in budget authority has been requested by the President for agriculture producers and ranchers. That will support $2.3 billion program level. The other suggestion is removing the loan caps. Then CBO is called on to answer the question, what will that cost? The answer is that will probably cost--and it is speculation, it is a guess, nobody knows because nobody knows what commodity prices will be in the future--it is guessed it will be $5.5 billion. The proponents of that proposal say we are for spending $5.5 billion plus $2.3 billion, so we are for spending almost $8 billion. So this is a more generous plan. What is not disclosed is the effect that policy change of raising the loan caps will have on prices of those commodities next year or the next. The fact is there are many who tell us that we are buying into a program that is going to have a continuing depressing effect on market price of these commodities that are covered by the loan programs. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't think anybody could have guessed that corn and wheat prices would have been as low as they are right now a year ago. So nobody knows what the prices are going to be in the future. I am told they will be lower because of that change in policy. So are we doing farmers a favor by making that policy change? It is really not a question, in my view, of who is willing to spend more money on farmers, the Republicans or the Democrats. Both are being very generous. That is the fact. Both are being very, very generous in terms of where we started, existing programs, precedent, previous disaster benefit efforts. The fact is the Democrats are in favor of making a policy change and substituting a change for an existing farm bill provision that set up the market transition payments and the phasing in to a market economy. We are in the second year of that farm bill. There are 3 more years left under the authority of the 1996 bill. I m hopeful that we can find a way to provide the benefits to American agriculture producers without rewriting or trying to rewrite portions of the 1996 farm bill. So we have a difference of opinion on that. Let me simply conclude my remarks by thanking everyone who helped us write this conference report. It has been a very challenging experience. I don't know that we had a more contentious or at least long drawn out conference on agriculture appropriations since I have been in the Congress. I don't recall having any more difficult time putting the bill together. We had a lot of disagreements that were discussed, but we worked them all out. We have a conference agreement. That is the good news. The other body has passed the conference report by a very large vote. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as noted by the Senator from Iowa, I supported legislation in the last Congress to address this problem, and I remain committed to ensuring that FEHBP beneficiaries receive quality, cost-effective, hearing care coverage. As he also noted, there are a number of medical, insurance and public policy issues involved, All these issues need to be considered, as well as the concerns of all members of the hearing health care team, including the Audiologists, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and the International Hearing Society. Whether in this Congress, or the next, I am committed to doing what is necessary to enable this body to understand these issues, and to determine the best way to address them, for the benefit of children and others, who need hearing health services.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Homebound Elderly Relief Opportunity Act of 1998'' (HERO). This measure addresses a very serious concern: the future of home care within the Medicare system. For Mississippians, home health has had a two-fold benefit: Home care serves to reduce costly hospitalization stays while enhancing the patient's quality of life through continued stay in the familiar home setting. Additionally, in a rural state like Mississippi, home health has enabled health care to be delivered to the immobile and elderly who are often miles and hours from the nearest hospital or clinic. Despite these obvious benefits, home health is very expensive, however. With Medicare and government expenditures, it is not always a question of ``What we should afford?'' but ``What we can afford?'' Congress answered these questions with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which has brought fiscal responsibility back to government. BBA 97 dealt with among other issues, Medicare, and in turn home health, probably the fastest growing expenditure within the program. The work of Senator Roth and the Finance Committee has helped insure some stability in home health expenditures, so that a good thing does not quickly become a bad thing and bankrupt the trust fund. However, instead of saving this vital Medicare benefit, HCFA's application of the Balanced Budget Act to home health--through the use of the Interim Payment System--has threatened its very existence. In so doing, HCFA has ignored both equity and the elderly, particularly in rural America. The Senate has not completely ignored the home health crisis: Sixty- eight of my colleagues have made statements which appear with their photographs on a recent industry poster proclaiming the ills of HCFA's interim payment system and its threat to the continuation of home health services. Five of my colleagues--Senators Grassley and Breaux; Senator Bond; Senator Collins; and Senator Kennedy have each introduced bills to adjust or eliminate IPS. Senator Bond has been the Senate champion of saving home health. His Senate Bill 2354, of which I am cosponsor, provides a direct, honest response to the HCFA-created nightmare. His bill would impose a moratorium on IPS from fiscal year 1998 forward until HCFA develops the prospective payment system, the only sure way to solve the home health expenditure issue in a fair manner. However, the Moratorium Bill's cost has been scored by CBO to be in the many many billions. While we must save home health, we cannot do so in a way that jeopardizes all of Medicare. We must find a compromise. That is the purpose of introducing HERO today. The HERO Bill is an effort to correct the essential problems with the interim payment system and to create a better bridge to the prospective payment system which we all hope will be developed and implemented soon. I believe it provides the best opportunity for success with respect to Government spending, Medicare reimbursement, and protecting beneficiaries. It establishes budget limits for Medicare home health expenditures for 1999-2002 with the same savings levels currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provisions. If expenditure estimates exceed the budget limits, payments to providers will be limited to regional levels on an equitable basis. Finally, it insures access to home care for all qualified Medicare beneficiaries. Overall, this bill provides one last opportunity in this session for all home health beneficiaries to receive the Medicare benefit to which they are entitled and for the providers of those services to be fairly reimbursed. It corrects the essential flaw in the original payment reform which rewarded the inefficient and punished the efficient providers and failed to account for the variation in the types of patients served by home health agencies. However, this bill operates with budgetary and operational safeguards to insure that the home health benefit stays on its steady course. Mr. President, Congress must reform IPS immediately before even more reputable home health agencies are forced out of business and more seniors are forced to go without care or leave their homes for more expensive hospital or nursing home care. I urge Senators to support this bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Homebound Elderly Relief Opportunity Act of 1998'' (HERO). This measure addresses a very serious concern: the future of home care within the Medicare system. For Mississippians, home health has had a two-fold benefit: Home care serves to reduce costly hospitalization stays while enhancing the patient's quality of life through continued stay in the familiar home setting. Additionally, in a rural state like Mississippi, home health has enabled health care to be delivered to the immobile and elderly who are often miles and hours from the nearest hospital or clinic. Despite these obvious benefits, home health is very expensive, however. With Medicare and government expenditures, it is not always a question of ``What we should afford?'' but ``What we can afford?'' Congress answered these questions with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which has brought fiscal responsibility back to government. BBA 97 dealt with among other issues, Medicare, and in turn home health, probably the fastest growing expenditure within the program. The work of Senator Roth and the Finance Committee has helped insure some stability in home health expenditures, so that a good thing does not quickly become a bad thing and bankrupt the trust fund. However, instead of saving this vital Medicare benefit, HCFA's application of the Balanced Budget Act to home health--through the use of the Interim Payment System--has threatened its very existence. In so doing, HCFA has ignored both equity and the elderly, particularly in rural America. The Senate has not completely ignored the home health crisis: Sixty- eight of my colleagues have made statements which appear with their photographs on a recent industry poster proclaiming the ills of HCFA's interim payment system and its threat to the continuation of home health services. Five of my colleagues--Senators Grassley and Breaux; Senator Bond; Senator Collins; and Senator Kennedy have each introduced bills to adjust or eliminate IPS. Senator Bond has been the Senate champion of saving home health. His Senate Bill 2354, of which I am cosponsor, provides a direct, honest response to the HCFA-created nightmare. His bill would impose a moratorium on IPS from fiscal year 1998 forward until HCFA develops the prospective payment system, the only sure way to solve the home health expenditure issue in a fair manner. However, the Moratorium Bill's cost has been scored by CBO to be in the many many billions. While we must save home health, we cannot do so in a way that jeopardizes all of Medicare. We must find a compromise. That is the purpose of introducing HERO today. The HERO Bill is an effort to correct the essential problems with the interim payment system and to create a better bridge to the prospective payment system which we all hope will be developed and implemented soon. I believe it provides the best opportunity for success with respect to Government spending, Medicare reimbursement, and protecting beneficiaries. It establishes budget limits for Medicare home health expenditures for 1999-2002 with the same savings levels currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provisions. If expenditure estimates exceed the budget limits, payments to providers will be limited to regional levels on an equitable basis. Finally, it insures access to home care for all qualified Medicare beneficiaries. Overall, this bill provides one last opportunity in this session for all home health beneficiaries to receive the Medicare benefit to which they are entitled and for the providers of those services to be fairly reimbursed. It corrects the essential flaw in the original payment reform which rewarded the inefficient and punished the efficient providers and failed to account for the variation in the types of patients served by home health agencies. However, this bill operates with budgetary and operational safeguards to insure that the home health benefit stays on its steady course. Mr. President, Congress must reform IPS immediately before even more reputable home health agencies are forced out of business and more seniors are forced to go without care or leave their homes for more expensive hospital or nursing home care. I urge Senators to support this bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coats be added as a cosponsor of S. 1873.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the time remaining on our side to the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for closing our debate.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the issue we are debating this morning is not new to the Senate. In May of this year, the Senate voted on a motion to invoke cloture so that we could proceed to consider the American Missile Protection Act. That motion was not successful. The vote was 59 in favor and 41 against. Therefore, we fell one vote short of invoking cloture so the Senate could proceed to debate the American Missile Protection Act. We have another chance today, Mr. President, to go on record in favor of considering this bill. So it should be put in context what we are voting for and what we are not voting for. We are not voting to pass the bill without any debate. That is not the issue. We are voting to proceed to consider the bill. Now let us put in context what the facts are today as compared with last May when we fell just one vote short of voting to consider this bill. At the time we voted in May, India had just tested--that very day-- for the second time, a nuclear weapons device. We were not aware that India was going to conduct that test. Our intelligence community was surprised. All the world was surprised. We used that example to urge the Senate to change our current policy on national missile defense, because the current policy is that we will make a decision to deploy a national missile defense system if we learn that some nation has developed the capacity to put us at risk, to threaten the security of American citizens with a ballistic missile system. So the assumption is that our intelligence community and our resources for learning things like this are so sophisticated and so reliable that we will be able to detect this, that we will have an early warning, that we will be able to know well in advance of any nation having the capability of inflicting damage or destruction on America's soil, through a ballistic missile system, in enough time that we could deploy a national missile defense system. Another consideration is that we have not yet developed a national missile defense system. We have various programs that are being tested in various stages of development-- theater ballistic missile defense systems--that can defend us against regional attacks, shorter-range attacks. But this bill is talking about a national ballistic missile defense system and whether or not our policy should be to wait and see if other countries develop the capability to put us at risk and then decide--then decide--whether we should work to deploy a system to protect against that kind of threat. What has changed since the vote in May is that not only did Pakistan proceed to test a nuclear device--we were not sure they were going to do that--they also had just recently tested a missile system that we did not know they had. We had been told a few months earlier that they had a missile system that was in the 180 mile range. They tested one that had a range of about 900 miles without our knowing they had the capability to do that, without our knowing that they had that missile. But they had acquired either the missile, the component parts, or the design from other countries or another country--according to press reports, North Korea was involved in that--and they were able to actually launch that across that distance, and it was a surprise to our intelligence community, to our country and to the world. Those events occurred about the time we voted in May. Since then, look what has happened. Iran has tested a longer-range missile than we expected them to have. North Korea has tested and has fired a multiple- stage ballistic missile. We had discussed the fact that that was possibly under development, the Taepo Dong missile. We are calling it the Taepo Dong I because we are told that there is a Taepo Dong II under development. That has been publicly reported in the press. The missile that was tested the other day by North Korea, the multiple-stage missile, was fired over Japan. There was evidence that the missile actually crossed the territory of Japan. Do you realize, Mr. President--I know Members of the Senate are aware--that we have some 37,000 Americans deployed in South Korea as a part of a defense stability effort in that region, and we have more than that in Japan, in the Okinawa area? The whole point is that if you consider all of that, we have 80,000 Americans who are at risk now because of the proven capability of North Korea and its new advanced missile capability. We have gone to great lengths in the last few years to dissuade North Korea from proceeding to develop nuclear weapons. We were very concerned that they were proceeding to do just that. Some think that they have made substantial progress in doing just that. Incidentally, the Taepo Dong II that I just mentioned has the capacity of striking the territory of the United States. Many troops and military assets and resources are located in Alaska. According to press reports, the Taepo Dong II would have the capacity to destroy that area, as well as striking Hawaii. Now, the issue is, do we proceed with the wait-and-see policy of this administration, or do we today vote to proceed to consider legislation that will change that policy, that will say as soon as technology permits, the United States will deploy a national missile defense system that will protect it against ballistic missile attack, whether unauthorized or accidental or intentional. We have all worried about accidental and unauthorized launches from China and Russia. We know those countries have the capability of striking us. But think about this other fact: What else has changed recently? The United States has observed the Russian Government slowly deteriorate to the point that the command and control structure of the military is seriously in question. Who really controls the armed forces of Russia to the point that you can rely upon the good intentions of the Yeltsin government not to target U.S. sites with their missile systems, their intercontinental ballistic missiles, the most lethal and accurate of any other country in the world, with multitudes of warheads, nuclear-tipped warheads? We are sitting here hoping and assuming that we can continue to work with Russia and whatever government does come out of the struggle for power there to continue to destroy nuclear weapons under Russian control rather than to build them up and make them more accurate and lethal. By the way, it is not like they have dismantled the nuclear weapon systems in Russia. They exist. They are lethal. They are capable of striking anywhere in the United States they might decide to strike, and we are glad that they don't have any intention of doing that. But they have the capability of doing that and there could be an unauthorized or accidental launch and we have absolutely no defense against that kind of attack. We have been operating under the assumption that we can assure them we will retaliate--we have the capacity to--and we will destroy any country who attempts to strike us in that way. That has been the system for defense that we have had. We have had no defense. The defense is that we will destroy you if you attack us in that way. That doesn't work with North Korea or Iran or some other rogue states, leaders, and terrorists who have announced that it is their stated goal to kill Americans and to destroy America and to build missile systems to do that or to sell missile systems to those who want to do that. North Korea said just that. An official stated publicly that they are in the business of selling missile systems. They need the money. That was the explanation. We know that is true. They have sold missile systems; they have sold component parts. Russia has people who are cooperating in Iran right now, and have in the past, to develop systems that could inflict great damage not only in that region but beyond. Now, some are saying that we already have authorization and funds in the pipeline to develop these missile systems to protect us-- interceptor missiles--and we read about the testing that is going on of theater systems. But we have no program that has as its goal the development and deployment of a missile defense that will protect the United States against unauthorized, accidental, or intentional ballistic missile attack. That is what this legislation addresses. It has two parts. The first is recitation of all of the facts that we have been able to gather through hearings over the last 2 years in our Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services. We have had hearings. We have published a report called Proliferation Primer. It has been widely distributed. It documents the fact that throughout the world there is a growing capability for the use of ballistic missiles. We talk about how it is happening and what people are saying who are in charge of those countries who are involved in this. It clearly, in our view, justified our asking this Congress to legislate a change in our policy to carry out now the express recommendations of the Rumsfeld Commission, which has, since our vote in May, given its report on the state of affairs regarding the ballistic missile threat to the United States. It was concluded in that report that our intelligence community does not have the capacity for making the early warning assessment that is contemplated under current administration policy. The Director of Central Intelligence has admitted in previous statements to the Senate that there are gaps and uncertainties in the information that his agency can obtain in making decisions about whether or not countries are developing or have the capacity to deploy ballistic missile systems that put our Nation at risk. Now that assessment and that description of the situation has been borne out by those recent developments. Admiral Jeremiah made a recent study of our intelligence agencies in the wake of some of these events, and he reported a similar problem. Given those facts, Mr. President, it seems clear to me, the cosponsors of this legislation, and 59 Senators, that the time has come to change the policy from wait and see to proceed as soon as technologically possible to deploy a national missile defense system to protect the security interests of the United States and its citizens. There is no higher responsibility that this Government has--no higher responsibility, no priority any greater--than the security of U.S. citizens. We are putting that security at risk, Mr. President, under the current policy. It is as clear as anything can be. The time has come today--this morning at 9:45 a.m.--to vote to proceed to consider this proposal, which simply calls for the deployment, as soon as technology permits, of a national missile defense system. Mr. President, I urge Senators to vote in support of the motion to invoke cloture. I ask unanimous consent that several articles pertaining to this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think before we start debate on that cloture motion, we should recognize the tremendous accomplishment of Mark McGwire who just broke Babe Ruth's home run record, Roger Maris' home run record and any other record that anyone has had for hitting home runs. The fact is that this is something we are all very happy to celebrate today, and we join with all Americans in congratulating Mark McGwire on this magnificent accomplishment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at the request of the majority leader, I am pleased to announce that at 9:45 a.m. this morning there will be a vote on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the missile defense bill, the American Missile Protection Act. The time between now and 9:45 will be equally divided for debate on that motion. I will be pleased to control the time on the Republican side of the aisle and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, will control the time on the other side in opposition. The leader intends to resume consideration, after this issue is completed, of the Interior appropriations bill and, further, at 4:30 p.m. today, the Senate will begin 30 minutes of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bankruptcy bill. That vote is expected to occur at 5 p.m. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session, with the first vote occurring, as I said, at 9:45 this morning.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of the time in opposition and move to table the amendment. I don't want to cut off any Senator's right to express themselves. I yield back the time left on this side on the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to this amendment because I agree very strongly with the fact that customers and residents of an area where a post office facility is located that is considered for relocation, consolidation, or closing, ought to have an opportunity to have a say-so in that process. For over a year, our subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the legislation involving the Postal Service, has been working closely with officials at the U.S. Postal Service to try to improve the processes. I can tell you that we have received a lot of cooperation, and I am convinced that we will continue to receive cooperation in improving this process and showing some sensitivity to political concerns and to local interests that are affected by these decisions. The Postal Service's continued efforts are appreciated very much by me. I think it would be a mistake for the Senate to legislate a new set of requirements or procedures that the U.S. Postal Service would have to follow. It would have the effect of undoing a lot of the good work that has been done recently when we have tried to work with them on this issue. In fact, Postmaster General Henderson has recently placed a moratorium on the closing of small post offices. This is an important issue. I agree with that. It deserves the attention of the Congress. But it is also a complex issue, one that should receive the careful consideration of the legislative committee in the due course of business, not by the adoption of an amendment, with 10 minutes of debate on each side, attached to an appropriations bill. This amendment would add a lengthy procedural set of requirements for all facility replacements, relocations, and closings. If a fire destroyed a postal facility, for example, necessary replacement would be delayed, as this new process--if we adopt it--ran its course. For each facility change, the postmasters would have to write to each customer explaining what, why, and when the action was planned. A public hearing would then be required, with testimony received from persons served by the facility. The Service would then have to respond in writing to any proposal of an alternative, giving reasons for rejecting such proposal. And then if one postal customer objects, the proposed action could be appealed to the Postal Rate Commission, causing additional delay. The effect of this amendment would be to seriously slow down the facility modernization program of the U.S. Postal Service. The Service has over 35,000 facilities around the country, and 8,000 of these facilities were modernized or improved during the last year. The Service has just recently published in the Federal Register new requirements that it is imposing on itself for consultation with local leaders and customers on all facility projects. The projects must be publicized in the local newspaper and a public hearing held to explain the proposal. Additionally, local public officials receive at least a 45-day notice before the Postal Service solicits for a new site. The new processes should provide ample opportunity for public input in a responsible and orderly way. I think they should be given a chance to work. I urge Senators to reject this amendment. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator withhold the request?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Did the clerk read the bill for the third time?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other requests for recognition. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.