Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I was going to move to table, but I understand the Senator from Montana wishes to speak.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the first letter that I read an excerpt from was from the American Cattlemen's Association. They represent all the beef cattlemen, many of them, throughout the country.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from the American Meat Institute, the letter that I referred to, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. It is my intention to move to table, but I will withhold the motion to table the Kerrey amendment and to ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the American Meat Institute points out in a letter to me that this amendment is not a good idea in a free economy, and you don't need a pilot program to learn that. It does not add information so much as it burdens industry and compromises legitimate business interests. In the Department of Agriculture, there is opposition to the amendment. They say that it reports already 75 percent or more of the 40 to 50 percent of boxed beef sales that comply with the reporting criteria. The Department estimates that more than two-thirds of the live negotiated cattle sales are reported. I might conclude by pointing out that no other segment of agriculture has to undergo mandatory reporting of all private business transactions. This pilot program will only add more burden on the industry and it compromises legitimate business interests. I suggest that the amendment should be defeated. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, it is our hope, given the fact that only one amendment really has been debated--and that is the Dodd amendment up to the point of 8:45 under the order--that a vote will occur on a motion to table the Dodd amendment, which will be made by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. That will take with it, if it is agreed to, the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas in the second degree. Then, that would be the only vote ordered to occur right now. We still have four other amendments that have been cited as in order to come up tonight: The Torricelli amendment, the Johnson amendment, the Graham amendment, and the Kerrey amendment. If the Dodd amendment is tabled, there won't be a need for the Torricelli amendment, as I understand it, and that would be withdrawn. Then we think we can work out an agreement to accept the Johnson amendment, which is the third amendment, and the Graham amendment on disaster assistance. But we would have to have a vote on the Kerrey amendment. That could occur tonight, or tomorrow, whatever the pleasure of the leadership is.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other Senators who want to debate this amendment. Let me just state for the information of all Senators the plan, as I understand it, that most who are involved have agreed upon, and that is to have a vote on a motion to table the Lugar amendment, which will be made by Senator Stevens at 6 o'clock, and following that, a vote on a motion to table the Bryan amendment, which I intend to make. We will have the yeas and nays on both of those amendments. It is the suggestion of the managers that if the Lugar amendment is not tabled, that that be the pending business following the vote on the motion to table the Bryan amendment. I don't want to speculate on how the vote on the motion to table the Bryan amendment will come out. The last time we voted, it was 59 to 40 in favor of tabling the amendment. That vote occurred on July 23, 1997, and it was an amendment to reduce the Market Access Program by $20 million. The vote No. was 199. So I am making that as an announcement to the Senate. If anyone has any comments to the contrary or observations to make about it, we will be glad to consider those comments and observations.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the benefit of the record, I quoted one of the witnesses who testified before our hearing. The person I quoted was Lon Hatimaya, who is Administrator of the Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agriculture Service.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think it is very clear from the unanimous vote we had on the resolution with which we started the debate on this legislation that all Senators agree our agriculture sector is under tremendous pressure and the Congress and the President ought to take immediate action to respond to these needs in the agriculture sector because of low prices in some areas, because of adverse weather conditions in other areas, because of a decline in demand resulting from the Asian economic crisis. Some of our strongest customers and markets are in that area of the world. So I think we have all gone on record as agreeing we need to use our best efforts, we need to mobilize our agencies of Government to take on the responsibility of helping to develop access to new markets, to try to help expand old markets so that we can sell what we are producing and create a better prospect for profit in agriculture in the production sector. So I don't think we have seen a situation in the last several years when there was any more reason to have a Market Access Program and to invest in an effort to expand these markets and make them more accessible to U.S. agriculture exports. The purpose of the Market Access Program, which we began in 1985, was to help expand foreign markets. Since then, agriculture exports have doubled. Last year, agriculture exports amounted to $57.3 billion, which resulted in a $21.5 billion agriculture trade surplus, providing jobs for approximately 1 million Americans. When we had our hearings in our agriculture appropriations subcommittee this year, we had representatives from the administration before our committee talking about the Foreign Agricultural Service programs. I am going to read the Senate something from the statement of one of those officials. He said: The outlook for U.S. agricultural exports is heavily influenced by competitive pressures that differ by commodity and can affect price and/or quantity of sales. One of the primary sources of this pressure is the rising value of the U.S. dollar, especially against the currencies of our major competitors. This has the effect of making U.S. exports more expensive to our customers relative to those of our competitors. Then there is a discussion in another part of this witness' statement about what some of the competitors are doing to try to enlarge their share of the world market for their products: We continue to face stiff competition in markets around the globe. Our annual review of the export promotion activities of the two countries that account for our major competition found that, just like the United States, many of our competitors have ambitious export goals. The EU and other countries assist their producers and small businesses to develop foreign markets through activities similar to our Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program. He goes on to say that in the EU countries, it is estimated that $400 million in 1995 and 1996 would be spent for market promotion: In Australia, Canada and New Zealand, those governments have strong governmental promotion agencies and rely heavily on their statutory marketing boards to carry out market development activities for producers of specific agricultural products. With this information and with the understanding of the success of many of these countries that are competing with us for market access and market goals, it would be the height of folly, in my judgment, to abandon one of the most successful programs that we have had to assist our agriculture producers in finding new markets and expanding those markets. We have had almost every year since I have been managing this agriculture appropriations bill an effort to either reduce the amount of money we were spending on market access promotion or to eliminate the program entirely. In the writing of the 1996 farm bill to try to deal with some of the criticism that had been directed toward this program, it was reformed and changed so that this year for the first time only small businesses and farm cooperatives will be eligible to have the benefits of this Market Access Program. There had been criticism that only the big, wealthy companies were benefiting, only brand names were being advertised. It was a way for big companies to avoid having to pay their own advertising costs. Let me explain that. Because of the reforms that have been made and the experiences that many have had in the program, the evidence is very compelling that this program has been working by attracting attention to the fact that American-made products do have high quality. Not only the raw agriculture commodities that are sold, but those that are processed and manufactured--some of those qualify and are eligible for participation in this program. Let me just give one example. The U.S. cotton industry, through the Cotton Council International organization, working under the Department of Agriculture's oversight, retains control over the expenditure of funds that are made available for the cotton industry. These Market Access Program funds are applied only to Cotton Council International advertisements that are produced to communicate the benefits of U.S.-grown cotton and establish consumer preference for products that bear the name ``Cotton USA.'' This is a trademark. It is registered. It represents all of U.S. cotton and manufactured cotton products in export promotion. These funds are used to advertise ``Cotton USA,'' and it associates that brand name with qualified manufacturers. The funds are not used to subsidize the advertising of private companies but, rather, all U.S.-grown cotton. Let me tell you what the results are. In 1997 alone, the Market Access Program helped combat unfair trading practices of other countries. It helped U.S. cotton producers get more income from the market as farm program payments declined. It helped generate $2.5 billion in cotton fiber exports and $5 billion in manufactured cotton product exports. It helped expand jobs, with over 150,000 workers depending directly on cotton and cotton product exports. That is one example of an agriculture commodity that is very important in my State of Mississippi and throughout our country. It is one of our major agriculture exports from our State. There are many others. The cooperatives that are involved in produce, the fruit and vegetable business in California and elsewhere, have indicated how important this program is to them. As a matter of fact, there is an entire list of organizations which have banded together and described themselves as the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports. They wrote me a letter dated June 22, 1998. The coalition membership list is attached to this letter. It runs the gamut across the country of various kinds of agricultural organizations and producer groups. But I wanted to just read a couple of things from this letter, and then I will have the entire letter, and the list, printed in the Record: Reducing or eliminating [Market Access Program] funding in the face of continued subsidized foreign competition, and with another round of trade negotiations set to begin in 1999, would be nothing less than unilateral disarmament. Such action would also violate the commitments made when Congress approved the 1996 farm bill and [it would] jeopardize its continued success. The letter also points out that this amendment to reduce funding that the Senator from Nevada is offering again this year was defeated last year--the effort to eliminate the funding--by a vote here in the Senate of 59 to 40. I think the Senate has come to realize this is an important program, it deserves the support of the Senate, and it has been reformed and revised so that the eligibility standards, the U.S. Department of Agriculture oversight, all make sure that the funds are spent wisely and that we get our money's worth as a result of this investment. Mr. President, there are also other specific groups that have benefited from the Market Access Program. It has come to my attention, for example, that the catfish industry--which is still a new industry that has been growing enormously in our country--is dependent upon the exports that we have come to appreciate. And in the European market, one example is Germany. Since 1991, catfish exports to Germany have increased from 18 metric tons a year to 237,437 metric tons in 1996. The Washington apple industry credits the Market Agriculture Promotion Program with fostering its dramatic apple export expansion to Indonesia. Here is a country that has had substantial economic problems recently, but back in 1990 they had less than $800,000 worth of apples being sold into that market. But each year since then, in spite of economic conditions there, sales have expanded, culminating in recent exports totaling $34 million. Another example is the U.S. Meat Export Federation. It offers a Branded Product Promotion Program to help private companies, small businesses and cooperatives, promote their own labels in foreign countries. This Branded Product Promotion Program has been instrumental in helping a small Ohio company called Certified Angus Beef introduce new-to-market meat cuts overseas. The sales have risen from 6.2 million pounds in 1990 to 37.3 million pounds in 1996. The association members throughout the country have benefited from these export sales. The association has received $53,000 in funding from MAP over a 6-year period. This is another specific example where we have targeted the MAP funds to small businesses, to associations, to cooperatives, and, for the first time in 1998, according to Secretary Glickman when he testified before our committee, this will be the first year when all of the funds will go to such entities. I think it is very clear from the evidence we have accumulated and the testimony we have had, and our hearings, that for U.S. agriculture to remain competitive, we are going to have to continue the policies and programs that have been effective, and we are going to have to deal with the reality of competition from others. The amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada would make us take a step backwards. It would make us give up one of the most effective tools we have to help American agriculture continue to prosper. The promotion activities of the Department of Agriculture have established a foundation for future market growth and expansion. But it is more important now, with the world situation as it is and hardships in American agriculture that have been identified over the last day and a half in discussions here on the floor, that the Department continue to work as hard as it can to use its resources to be a partner with the farmers and the exporters of America to meet our expansion objectives for American agriculture. Our exports are essential, not only to agriculture, but to the Nation's economic well-being as well. Jobs are created in the producing and packaging industries, in transportation--a wide range of economic activities are affected by agriculture. It is one of the strongest economic sectors we have. To keep it that way, we are going to have to take care of it. We can't just let it shrivel. We can't let it be the victim of international conditions as exist in Asia today. We have to do our part. The Senate has to do its part, too. American agriculture needs us, needs the programs like the Market Access Program, in order to compete in this new global environment. I can't stress any more than I have tried to the importance of our rejecting this amendment. I urge all Senators to oppose the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to from the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agriculture Exports and list of members be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there are no other Senators wishing to speak on the Lugar amendment at this time, and I see none on the floor, I think we should proceed to set aside the Lugar amendment and turn to an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan. It is my hope that we can complete debate on the amendment of the Senator from Nevada before the hour of 6 o'clock, and at 6 there would be a motion to table the Lugar amendment and a vote thereon. Then I will move to table the Bryan amendment and we will have a vote on that. That is the plan of action. With that, and if there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that the Lugar amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment deals with the sanctions against India and Pakistan. The amendment has been cleared on this side of the aisle. I understand that it has also been cleared on the other side. But I yield to my friend from Arkansas for any comments.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their cooperation and assistance in reaching this point of the debate on the agriculture appropriations bill. I now yield back all time that remains on this side on the Daschle amendment. I move to table the Daschle amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we have had a full and complete debate on the Senator's amendment. We have heard from Senators on both sides of the aisle. I am prepared to yield back any time that remains to this side on the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota, but before doing that I am happy to announce to the Senate that we have reached an agreement on both sides with respect to the amendments that will be in order to this bill and, following the disposition of the Daschle amendment, we will proceed to consider other amendments. With the authority of the majority leader and with the permission and consent of the minority leader, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill, the following be the only first-degree amendments in order, subject to relevant second- degree amendments, and following the disposition of the amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and the Senate proceed immediately to Calendar No. 430, the House companion bill. I further ask that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of the Senate bill as amended be inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, and the Senate bill be placed back on the calendar. I submit the list of amendments to be offered on both sides.

Mr. COCHRAN. We will be glad to accommodate that.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are getting to the point where I think the Senate should seriously consider preparing for a vote on a motion to table this amendment. I know the time continues to exist on both sides, but I am hopeful we can yield back whatever time has not been used as soon as everybody who wants to talk has had a chance to talk. We don't want to cut anybody off. I am not going to do that. I am just expressing the hope that if everybody has had their say on this amendment, and we have had arguments on both sides--we had a very strong, convincing argument by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee; we have had discussions on the Democratic side by four Senators that I recall speaking in support of the amendment; Senator Daschle talked in support of the amendment yesterday when he offered the amendment--so I am hopeful that those who want to speak will come to the floor and speak on this amendment and then we will have a motion to table and a vote. I think the time expires sometime a little after 2 o'clock. We had 3 hours on the amendment. That is just a request. I hope Senators will respond to that request so we can make progress to complete action on this bill today. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and suggest the time should be charged equally between the proponents and opponents of the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am delighted the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, has had an opportunity to make the case against this amendment offered by the Democratic leader, by Senator Harkin, and by others. It is just as clear to me as anything can be that the weight of the evidence is against the passage of this amendment by the Senate. One other point that I do not think has been made enough is that the purpose of this legislation we are dealing with today is to appropriate money to fund the Department of Agriculture programs, the FDA, and CFTC as well. We are not here to really pass judgment on the legislative authority for the Department's expenditure of money. This amendment, offered by the Democratic leader, purports to and intends to rewrite legislative language that was approved by the Congress in the 1996 farm bill and was signed by the President and implemented through regulations and administrative actions by this administration. Our committee has the responsibility of determining how much money is needed to carry out that farm bill and what authorities we have in law to spend the funds that have been allocated to our subcommittee under the budget. So our responsibilities are really limited by law. If we decided to start rewriting provisions of the farm bill of 1996, that would be a never-ending ordeal for the Senate to put itself through. For that reason, the Senate ought to reject this first amendment that seeks to start that process. This is the first amendment offered to this bill that seeks to rewrite legislative authority of the Department of Agriculture to administer a farm program. If we start down this road this morning on this amendment, it may never end. Think about this. When we were writing the farm bill of 1996, we had the best information, advice, and counsel from experts on agriculture programs at our hearings in the Committee on Agriculture. The House went through the same exercise. The administration was actively involved. There was give and take. There was compromise. But, in the end, we developed a consensus of what ought to be done to put our country on a firm footing of legal authority for programs that would support agriculture. So the end product was the 1996 farm bill. If we start trying to undo it and rewrite it piecemeal, section by section, we are going to have the biggest mess on our hands you could ever dream of. So the Senate ought today to vote for the motion to table, which I will make in due course, when time has expired or when all time is yielded back on this amendment. I hope the Senate will reject this amendment.