Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment increases appropriations in the bill for the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service to fund additional agricultural research activities. Specifically, the amendment provides an additional $300,000 to increase scientific staffing at the Cropping Systems Center at the New England Plant, Soil, and Water Laboratory in Orono, Maine, to develop production and disease management systems. This research will increase potato production efficiency, viability of small farms and enhance water quality in the Northeast Region. It increases the total funding provided in the bill for special research grants funded through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service by $1,300,000 to fund the following new research grants at the levels specified: Chesapeake Bay agroecology (Maryland)..........................$300,000 Designing Food for Health (Texas)..............................$250,000 Infectious disease research (Colorado).........................$250,000 Scallops Research (Connecticut)................................$250,000 Urban aquaculture (Massachusetts)..............................$250,000 The amendment also increases the appropriation for the Rural Community Advancement Program by $3,400,000 and earmarks funding for a community improvement project in Eastern Arkansas. Finally, the amendment adds a general provision to the bill to eliminate for fiscal year 1999 the surcharge on the administrative fee in excess of $50 per crop per county authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Protection Act. The additional costs of the changes proposed by this amendment are fully offset by a further restriction on new acreage enrollments in the Wetlands Reserve Program for fiscal year 1999. This proposed change would place a 120,000 acre limitation on new acreage enrollments versus the 140,000 limitation currently recommended in the bill. I ask that this amendment be favorably considered by my colleagues. Let me say by way of further explanation, in describing the amendment, the reason we have to make this change in the Crop Insurance Program is that we wanted to remove a 10-percent surcharge on the administrative fee imposed by the Agriculture Research Extension and Education Reform Act. That was the bill that we had earlier passed which provides a lot of new, mandated expenditures for agriculture research. This surcharge, that I have referred to, would require farmers to pay as much as a 400-percent increase above the 1998 administrative fee. This is not a minimal administrative fee as farmers had been promised. So this amendment will remove the surcharge, and that is the purpose of getting this amendment offered at this early stage in the bill, so there will not be any question about whether or not there will be an opportunity for participation by farmers in the Crop Insurance Program because of these prohibitive costs. We think this is an important change to be made in that law and will help provide the opportunity to deal with disaster assistance under the Crop Insurance Program. My understanding is that this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I will defer to my friend from Arkansas for any comments he would like to make on this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that the objection that we previously heard had been raised to setting aside the pending sense-of- the-Senate resolution and sending an amendment to the desk has now been lifted, and that there is no objection to taking that action, as I had earlier been advised. So, I send the amendment that I described on crop insurance to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Democratic leader's request was that there be 10 minutes equally divided, or 10 minutes on each side? Although 10 minutes has already been used in debating the amendment, does that count? I am curious.

Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. COCHRAN. Can we get the yeas and nays on the motion to waive and then approve this?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. There has been some misunderstanding, I think, in conversations I have had with fellow Senators about this amendment. What it does not purport to do is to tell the States how to certify or what criteria to use in the certification process for secondary school teachers. This amendment is directed to the universities and the colleges that have departments of education and that grant degrees in education, and it seeks to insist that as a part of the education of secondary school teachers there be a requirement that there is a subject matter major included as part of the learning experience for these teacher candidates. So it doesn't purport to set out new rules to impose on States in the certification process. That is another subject, and we could talk about that in a separate debate. But this subject talks about what kind of quality learning experience do we want our secondary school teachers to have. Some can go through the education departments in colleges and universities--at least in 18 States, or 16 States. Thirty-two require that there be subject matter majors of education degree candidates. But the other States, you can go through an education department learning experience and get a degree and then be a candidate for certification and teach in the secondary schools of the State without ever having a major field of study in an academic subject like English or history or math or science. It seems to me that it makes eminently good sense to suggest as a matter of national policy that our education schools throughout the country insist upon an academic major for the graduates in the education schools. And that is all this amendment does. The Senator from New Mexico talked about a number of other subjects that he thought ought to be considered by State governments, and they deal in large part with certification items. But the committee has already sorted through those suggestions. They have included some in the managers' package before the Senate, and they have not included some. But this is a very narrow amendment. Of all the suggestions my friend from New Mexico makes, this one, to me, is one that ought to be approved by the Senate without any question whatsoever. It is certain that those who teach in the high schools of our country ought to be well versed, well grounded in some academic subjects, not just in teaching methods or teaching techniques or other courses--the relationship of the school with the community. We have all, in our common experience, had knowledge of the courses that are taught in many of the education schools. Many of them are important, and they are valuable. But we do not want teachers coming through those colleges and universities with only courses in method and technique and the relationship of the school to the community and the other subjects that they are taught in the education departments. And we are not being critical. I am certainly not. My State of Mississippi, I am glad to see, is one of the 32 States where the academic major is required of teacher candidates who are graduating from the departments of education in our college and university system. So I hope Senators will look at this amendment carefully and support it. To me, it is a very important step in the right direction of improving the overall quality of all of our teachers in secondary schools throughout the country. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend from New Mexico in sponsoring this amendment and urging the Senate to approve it. I ask unanimous consent that I be shown as a cosponsor of the amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 412, S. 1104.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in executive session, I ask unanimous consent the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Michael Trujillo to be Director of the Indian Health Service Department of Health and Human Services.

Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration and further ask consent that the Senate also proceed en bloc to the consideration of Calendar No. 625. I finally ask consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then turn to legislative session.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. This is a revised comparative statement of new budget authority which corrects two errors in the ``FY 1999 Estimates'' column in the same table printed in the committee report that accompanies the bill. Mr. President, I must also observe, before yielding the floor, that my good friend from Arkansas, who is the distinguished ranking Democrat on the subcommittee on agriculture appropriations, is helping manage this bill this year, and it will be his last opportunity to exercise this important responsibility. He has chosen not to seek reelection in the State of Arkansas for another term in the Senate. And I must say that it pains me to contemplate going through the process of developing and helping to write an agriculture appropriations bill without his intelligent and thoughtful assistance. He has been a good friend to me since I have been in the Senate. We have worked closely together on a number of issues, not only in agriculture, in rural development, but in other areas as well. I pointed out earlier in my statement that in recognition of his outstanding service for the people of Arkansas in the U.S. Senate, and particularly for his work on agriculture research issues, there is included in this bill a general provision to designate the U.S. National Rice Germplasm Evaluation and Enhancement Center in Stuttgart, AR, the ``Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center.'' The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has been a very effective advocate of agriculture research funds for this ARS Research Center. I think he is the father of that center. I believe it is most appropriate to name this facility in his honor. Also, I want to express my appreciation to him and the members of his staff, and the other members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, for their assistance and support and cooperation in developing this legislation. I hope the Senate will approve it. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present for the Senate's consideration S. 2159, the Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This bill provides fiscal year 1999 funding for all programs and activities of the United States Department of Agriculture--with the exception of the Forest Service--the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm credit system. As reported, the bill recommends total new budget authority for fiscal year 1999 of $56.8 billion. This is $7.0 billion more than the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, and $740 million less than the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request. Changes in mandatory funding requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, principally reflecting lower estimated Food Stamp and higher Child Nutrition program expenses, along with a $7.6 billion increase in the required payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. Including Congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior- year spending actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.715 billion in budget authority and $14.080 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999. These amounts are consistent with the Subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations. Let me take a few minutes first to summarize the bill's major funding recommendations. For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, appropriations of $605 million are recommended, $16 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level. These additional funds are necessary to maintain the current inspection system and to continue to implement the Hazardous Analysis and Critical Control Point meat and poultry inspection system. For farm credit programs, the bill funds an estimated $2.4 billion total loan program level, including $489 million for farm ownership loans and $1.8 billion for farm operating loans. Total funding of $922 million is recommended for the Farm Service Agency, $11 million more than the 1998 level. Increased funding is provided to maintain non-Federal staff years at the level requested in the budget, preventing reductions beyond those already planned. For agriculture research, education, and extension activities, the bill provides total appropriations of $1.7 billion. Included in this amount is a reduction from fiscal year 1998 of $35.2 million for Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities, a $24 million increase for research activities of the ARS, and a $12 million increase in funding for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which includes a 3-percent increase in base formula funds. For USDA conservation programs, total funding of $792 million is provided, $5 million more than the 1998 level. This includes $638 million for conservation operations, $101 million for watershed and flood prevention operations, and $34 million for the resource conservation and development program. USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service is funded at a level of $136 million. In addition, a total program level of $1.1 billion is recommended for the Public Law 480 program, including $221 million for Title I, $837 million for Title II, and $30 million for Title III of the program. The bill also provides a total program level of $2.2 billion for rural economic and community development programs. Included in this amount is $700 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, an increase of $48 million from the fiscal year 1998 level; and a total $1.5 billion program level for rural electric and telecommunications loans, $92 million more than the 1998 level. The Committee has devoted adequate resources to those programs which provide affordable, safe, and decent housing for low-income individuals and families living in rural America. Estimated rural housing loan authorizations funded by this bill total $4.3 billion, a $65 million increase from the fiscal year 1998 appropriations level. Included in this amount is $1.0 billion in section 502 low-income housing direct loans and $129 million in section 515 rental housing loans. In addition, $583 million is recommended for the rental assistance program. This is the same as the budget request level and $42 million more than the 1998 appropriation. Over 65 percent of the bill's total funding, $37 billion, is provided for USDA's domestic food assistance programs. This includes $9.2 billion for child nutrition programs; $3.9 billion for WIC, including $15 million for the farmers' market nutrition program; $141 million for commodity assistance; and $23.8 billion for the food stamp program. For those independent agencies funded by the bill, the Committee provides total appropriations of $1.0 billion. Included in this amount is $61 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and $953 million for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Total appropriations recommended for the FDA are $27 million more than the 1998 level, reflecting the full increase requested in the budget for FDA rental payments and an additional $4 million more than the request level for buildings and facilities. In addition, the bill makes available $132 million in Prescription Drug User Fee Act collections, $15 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level. I would like to point out to my colleagues that the discretionary spending allocations for this bill are approximately $200 million in budget authority and outlays below a freeze at the 1998 levels. To provide the selected increases I just cited and to maintain funding for essential farm, housing, and rural development programs, several mandatory funding restrictions are included in the bill. Modest limitations are imposed on Food Stamp program commodity purchases and on acreage enrollments in the Wetlands Reserve Program, and restrictions are imposed on fiscal year 1999 funding for the Conservation Farm Option Program and the Fund for Rural America. In the case of the Fund for Rural America, it was a choice between providing adequate appropriations for research and rural development-- the increases in funding recommended for agriculture research and rural development, including $48 million for the Rural Community Advancement program and $24 million for ARS research--or allowing the Administration to decide how to spend funds for selected rural development and agriculture research purposes. I also want to remind my colleagues that the President's budget for programs and activities under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction assumes new user fees will be enacted and generate a net total of over $650 million in collections to offset the discretionary spending increases proposed by the President. While relying on savings from new user fees and other legislative proposals may allow the President to claim discretionary spending levels which conform with those set forth in the bipartisan budget agreement, appropriations cannot be reduced until these legislative proposals are acted on by Congress and enacted into law. However, that is not the case and this bill assumes none of the user fee savings proposed in the budget. Consequently, the savings assumed in the President's budget are not available to this Committee to offset the discretionary spending increases and new initiatives proposed by the Administration. Many of these proposals have merit and are ones I might support. However, this Committee must comply with the discretionary spending levels in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement and we have had to make some difficult decisions as a result. We have worked hard to maintain funding for the programs and activities funded by this bill as close to the 1998 program levels as possible, providing increases necessary to maintain essential personnel levels and to meet increased subsidy costs where necessary to sustain 1998 loan levels. Also, despite recent reports, food safety continues to be a high priority of this Committee. The bill recommended to the Senate provides the funds necessary to ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food in the world. This bill makes no reductions in appropriations for USDA and FDA food safety activities. In fact, the bill continues the enhanced levels provided last year for activities defined to be part of the Administration's food safety initiatives. This includes the additional $24 million for FDA food safety initiatives and $9 million for USDA food safety initiatives provided for fiscal year 1998. In addition, the bill includes $3.6 million of the increase requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget for USDA food safety initiatives. Not included in the President's food safety initiatives but equally important to the continued safety of our nation's food supply is based funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This bill provides fiscal year 1999 appropriations of $605 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), $455 million more than the Administration's requested level and $16 million more than the 1998 level. With the appropriations for FSIS inspection activities included, this bill recommends total appropriations of $806.3 million for FDA and USDA food safety activities for fiscal year 1999, as compared to the President's $380.6 million appropriations request. This does not include enhanced funding of $50.7 million for FDA food safety initiatives which the President proposes be funded through new user fees. Mr. President, in closing, I remind Senators that this will be the last time that my good friend from Arkansas and the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee, Senator Bumpers, will manage this appropriations bill. Senator Bumpers has been a valued member of the Appropriations Committee for the past 20 years and of this Subcommittee for the past thirteen years. The work of the Subcommittee reflects his intimate knowledge of the programs and activities. Senator Bumpers has been an advocate of American agriculture and a proponent of programs to improve the quality of life and help bring jobs to rural areas. His many contributions to this process and this bill will continue on after his retirement from the Senate, but his leadership and participation in the work of the Committee in the future will be missed, particularly by this Senator. Included in this bill is a general provision to designate the United States National Rice Germplasm Evaluation and Enhancement Center in Stuttgart, Arkansas, the ``Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center.'' The Senator from Arkansas has been an effective advocate of agricultural research and is the father of this ARS research center. I believe it is most appropriate to name this facility in his honor. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Bumpers, as well as all other Members of the Subcommittee for their support and cooperation in putting this bill together. Mr. President, I believe the bill represents a balanced and responsible set of funding recommendations within the limited resources available to the subcommittee. I ask my colleagues to give it their favorable consideration. Mr. President, I urge Senators to notice in our bill some important efforts to contrast the process that we followed to appropriate these funds with the proposal the President made when he submitted his budget request for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies. A great deal of attention has been called to the President's request for additional funding of so-called new initiatives in certain areas covered by this bill. To propose these new funding levels, these so- called new initiatives, the President has had to assume that funds would be generated for those purposes by the enactment by the Congress of user fees. These cover Food Safety and Inspection Service activities. They also cover Food and Drug Administration activities. The Congress has not enacted these user fees, and there is no expectation that Congress will through the legislative committees that have jurisdiction of these subjects. Therefore, that has led to the appearance that the committee, in its action to bring this bill to the floor, has not appropriated funds that the President has requested for these so-called new initiatives and additional spending programs. We have not been able to accommodate the President's request because the allocation of funds to this subcommittee is insufficient to cover both the funding of the programs that we have had to fund in the bill, the continuing programs of research and extension and education which I have described so far, many of which are above the President's requested level, but the additional funds that he presumed would be available to this committee from user fees are not available to the committee, and therefore, for some accounts, it may appear that the committee is not funding those activities at the levels the President promised to secure the funding. I think that explanation will serve to alleviate some concerns that I have heard expressed. One was expressed in the meeting of our full committee when this bill was under consideration, that we were going to put in jeopardy in some way, by having the funding levels that we had for food safety, the safety of school lunch food that is consumed by students at school. We have actually increased the programs that help safeguard the food supply well over and above what the President had requested. He has suggested that funds be allocated to some so-called new initiatives, but he didn't request that we have inspectors in our poultry and meatpacking plants, as we have to have under current law, to inspect those processes and those plants to be sure that the food is packaged and processed in a way that is safe and will result in wholesome, nutritious food supplies for our country. We funded that. We have actually increased the funding above last year's levels, so that we wouldn't have to close any of these plants or shut them down for any periods of time that would be required if we had not come up with this funding. I assure Senators that we have taken great care to make sure that the funds are there for this next fiscal year for these food safety programs, including the so-called HACCP program, the new program that has been under development for the last several years in which this committee has cooperated to fund, so that it can bring to the challenge of food safety the latest in technologies and understanding and information so that we don't have to worry that we are not doing enough to help protect the food that is consumed in the United States. I must say, too, that I think our producers and those who work to bring us this food supply have to be given great credit for the success they have had in producing a reasonably priced, wholesome, nutritious food supply for our country and, beyond that, millions and billions of dollars in excess of what we need in our country for export in the world marketplace. Senators will also know that one of the areas of emphasis in this legislation is the funding of programs to help make sure that our exporters and our farmers are treated fairly in the international marketplace, that we continue to endeavor to break down barriers to fair trade for American agriculture products. This morning, we had an opportunity to meet with representatives of a number of national farm organizations who were here in the Capitol to discuss the problems in certain sectors of agriculture in certain regions of this country. The meeting was actually convened by Senator Conrad Burns of Montana and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. The majority leader was President--was present--he may be President, not yet; he may be President later. Senator Dick Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, was present. We had 12 or 14 Senators involved in this meeting to find out what the suggestions were for helping to deal with some of these problems of low prices on the farm in certain areas and in certain commodities, and problems in trade, problems with tax laws that operate to the detriment of many who own and operate our Nation's farms. It was a good meeting. I say to Senators that this bill addresses many of the problems that were identified in that meeting this morning. So it is responsive to the concerns that we hear. We do need to do a more aggressive job to take up for our Nation's farmers both at home, in terms of regulations and tax policies which make it hard to operate or more expensive, and in terms of trade policies and national initiatives, to be sure that we have an opportunity to sell what we produce in the international marketplace at competitive prices, so there can be profit in agriculture and we can continue to reap the benefit in our country and our economy, in all aspects of our economy that are related and involved with agriculture, of a healthy, vibrant agriculture economy. We have all heard how many jobs depend upon our farmers, how many people are in the processing businesses, the value-added processing of food products, the transportation, the inputs that go into the farming operations in every rural community and every State in this great Nation. It is a huge business enterprise. And it deserves the sensitive support of the policymakers in Washington and a department of agriculture that cares when there is a problem on the farm and moves quickly to try to deal with it. I think this legislation is consistent with those aims and those goals and those interests that we all have here in the Senate. I am hopeful that Senators will review the bill and give it their full support. And I hope Senators who have suggestions for changes in the bill will come to the floor and present those suggestions, and we will consider them in a very careful and sympathetic way. We just as soon there not be any amendments. We think this is a good bill. We hope Senators will agree with us. We do have some committee amendments, and we have recommendations that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle for changes in the bill after the bill was considered in our committee. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table comparing the committee's recommendations for fiscal year 1999 to the fiscal year 1998 levels and the President's fiscal year 1999 budget estimates be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff members and fellow and intern be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this bill, S. 2159, and during any votes that may occur in relation thereto: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, Rachelle Graves, Cornelia Tietka and Haywood Hamilton.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now begin consideration of Calendar No. 409, S. 2159, the agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Friday, June 19. I further ask that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 2057, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m. and immediately resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is hoped that Members who wish to offer amendments to the defense bill will come to the floor during Friday's session to offer and debate their amendments under short time agreements. The majority leader has announced that there will be no votes during tomorrow's session. Therefore, any votes ordered with respect to the Department of Defense bill, or any other legislative or executive items, will be postponed to occur at a later date. The leader would also remind Members that the Independence Day recess is fast approaching. Therefore, the cooperation of all Members will be necessary to make progress on a number of important items, including appropriations bills, any available conference reports, the Higher Education Act, the Department of Defense authorization bill, and any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action.