Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. At the direction of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 167.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this concurrent resolution was adopted by the House with the passage of the rule for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2160, the Fiscal Year 1998 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. It makes a technical correction in the conference report. Specifically, it inserts a proviso in the food stamp account language which was included in the House bill and agreed to by the conference committee but inadvertently left out of the conference report which was filed.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been advised by the staff that hotlines have been sent out to Members on both sides, and we have no indication that any other Senator wants to come and speak on the subject of the conference report. Therefore, I am authorized by the distinguished ranking member to yield back all time remaining on the conference report on both sides of the aisle, and I now so do.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as provided by the unanimous-consent agreement taking up this appropriations conference report, there are 20 minutes equally divided available for further discussion of the conference report. I have had some indication that there may be one or two Senators who may wish to comment. Pending their arrival on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to present for the Senate's approval today the conference report on H.R. 2160, the Fiscal Year 1998 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The conference agreement provides total appropriations of $49.7 billion. This is $4.1 billion less than the fiscal year 1997 enacted level and $2.6 billion less than the level requested by the President. It is $964 million less than the total appropriations recommended by the Senate-passed bill and $146 million more than the level recommended by the House bill. Including Congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior- year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998 of $13.751 billion in budget authority and $13.997 billion in outlays. These amounts are consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations established for this conference agreement. Both the House and the Senate passed this bill at the end of July. The conferees met and completed conference on September 17. I believe it is a credit to all members of the conference committee that we were able to reach a conference agreement quickly. Special recognition is due the ranking member of the subcommittee, my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers; the chairman of the House Subcommittee, Congressman Skeen of New Mexico; and the ranking member of the House Subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur, for their hard work and cooperation in making this possible. It was our intent that the conference report on this bill would be adopted by both bodies of the Congress and sent to the President prior to the October 1, 1997, start of the fiscal year. However, it was the decision of the leadership to withhold Senate approval of this conference agreement until further progress was made on the FDA reform bill, which reauthorizes fees to expedite FDA's prescription drug review and approval process. The conference agreement on this appropriations bill was adopted by the House of Representatives on Monday, October 6, by a vote of 399 yeas to 18 nays. Senate adoption of this conference report today is the final step remaining to allow this measure to be sent to the President for signature into law. We have every indication that the bill will be signed by the President. Approximately $37.2 billion, close to 75 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. This is roughly the same as the House bill level and $923 million less than the Senate level. The difference from the Senate recommended level is principally due to the fact that the Senate receded to the House on the transfer of funding Food and Consumer Service studies and evaluations to the Economic Research Service, and accepted the lower House bill level for the Commodity Assistance Program based on the Department of Agriculture's revised estimate of program need. In addition, the Senate receded to the House level of $100 million for the Food Stamp Program contingency reserve, $900 million less than the Senate bill level. For agriculture programs, the conference report recommends a total of $6.9 billion, $57 million more than the House bill level. This amount includes $1.2 billion for agricultural research and education, $423 million for extension activities, $430 million for the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service, $589 for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $703 million for the Farm Service Agency, and $253 million for the Risk Management Agency. For conservation programs, the conference report recommends almost $790 million, $30 million more than the House bill level but $36 million less than the amount recommended by the Senate. For rural economic and community development programs, the bill recommends $2.1 billion, $47 million more than the House level and $9 million more than the Senate bill level. Included in this amount is $652 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, nearly $8 million more than the Senate bill level, and the Senate bill level of $535 million for the rental assistance program. The conference report also provides a total rural housing loan program level of $4.2 billion. For foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of Agriculture, the bill recommends $1.7 billion, including $131 million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a total program level of $1.1 billion for the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program. The Food and Drug Administration receives one of the largest discretionary spending increases over the fiscal year 1997 level. Included in the appropriation provided by the conference agreement for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is $24 million for food safety and $34 million for youth tobacco prevention. These are the full amounts requested by the Administration for these initiatives. Mr. President, there is no reason to continue temporary stop-gap funding for the programs and activities funded by this bill. As I indicated earlier, this conference report was filed on September 17 and was adopted by the House of Representatives on October 6. Senate passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill to the President for signature into law. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this conference report.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, and following the expiration or yielding back of time, the conference report be considered agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 2160) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business until 6:30 p.m. within which Senators may be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, funeral services will be held today in my State for Walter Grey Hemphill, Jr., a World War II hero, who was also a very close personal friend. He was best known in our community as a former star athlete at Byram High School, who was recruited to play football at the University of Mississippi in 1941, as a successful coach and teacher at his alma mater, a respected vice president and general manager of Deviney Construction Co., an active member and chairman of the deacons at the First Baptist Church of Byram, and as a past worthy patron of the Order of the Eastern Star. While most of his friends knew that Walter Grey Hemphill, Jr., had been a veteran of World War II, few were aware of the details of his combat experiences. The fact that he was one of the true heros of the Battle of the Bulge was not something he talked about very easily. The citation he received awarding him the Silver Star for valor in battle described his bravery under fire and his willingness to risk his life to save the lives of his fellow paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division in the fighting near Bastogne, Belgium, in December 1944. He destroyed a German gun emplacement with an explosive charge at close range while under heavy enemy fire. His courageous action saved the lives of the members of his unit, but he was seriously wounded in the process. He received two Purple Hearts and spent over a year in hospitals recovering from his injuries. After the war, he returned to the University of Mississippi and, although unable to play football, he earned his bachelor and master's degrees and became my high school world history teacher, as well as my football, basketball, and baseball coach. He was also our close neighbor whose friendship I enjoyed and appreciated. I'm confident that the lessons I learned from him on the athletic fields, in the classrooms, and in our neighborhood provided me with a firm foundation of values, attitudes, and work habits that made future academic and professional success possible. I will always remember and be grateful for his generous acts of kindness, his fair but firm discipline, and his thoughtful leadership. He is survived by a dear and loving wife, Elsie, and a devoted daughter, Patricia Windham, to whom I extend my sincerest condolences.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Postal Financing Reform Act of 1997. This bill gives the Postal Service the authority to deposit funds in private sector institutions, invest in the open market, and borrow from private credit markets. The statutory restrictions of current law on postal finances, borrowing, and purchasing were designed for a Postal Service that required regular infusions of appropriated funds to maintain public service levels. For almost two decades now, the Postal Service has been a self-supporting system. The maintenance of U.S. Treasury control over Postal Service banking, investing, and borrowing is no longer necessary or justified. Current law prevents the Service from obtaining the most favorable combination of prices and services and results in added operating costs of over $100,000,000 annually. Under this new approach, the Treasury Department would retain much of its current oversight, but it would no longer be the sole provider of certain financial services to the Postal Service. This bill makes the relationship between the Treasury and the Postal Service similar to the relationship other government sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have with the Treasury. The bill I am introducing includes four main sections--those being sections 2 through 5. Section 2 amends title 39 of the United States Code to authorize the Postal Service to deposit its revenues in the Postal Service Fund within the U.S. Treasury or any Federal Reserve banks or depositories for public funds. The requirement to obtain the Secretary of the Treasury's approval before any funds deposited elsewhere would be eliminated. The third section terminates Treasury control of Postal Service investments. This will permit the Postal Service to invest any excess funds either in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the Government of the United States, or in such other obligations or securities as it deems advisable, provided that such investment is determined to be closely related to Postal Service operations by the Postal Board of Governors. By providing the Postal Service with an opportunity to invest in U.S. Government obligations or other obligations on its own accord without unnecessary constraints, this section of the bill would permit the Postal Service to take advantage of favorable market conditions, and give it the ability to make equity investments which fit its business strategies. Section 4 removes the control of the Secretary of the Treasury over the Postal Service's financial borrowing decisions. The Postal Service would still be required to consult with the Secretary of the Treasury regarding the terms and conditions of the sale of any obligations issued by the Postal Service under section 2006(a) of title 39, and the Secretary would still exercise a power of approval over the timing of a sale of obligations, in much the same manner as the Treasury acts as a traffic cop with regard to the timing of obligations issued by other government-sponsored enterprises. Finally, this bill removes the requirement of the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase up to $2 billion in obligations of the Postal Service. This section would still permit the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase Postal Service obligations, but only upon mutual agreement between the Secretary and the Postal Service. Removing this put on the Treasury would be consistent with the purpose of directing the Postal Service borrowing to the private sector where it would be able to take advantage of a broader market. This section would also make Treasury purchases of Postal Service obligations exempt from the various borrowing limits in title 39 of the United States Code thus enabling the Postal Service and the Treasury by mutual agreement to address an unforeseen emergency situation. Such exempt purchases would themselves be capped at $2.5 billion of outstanding obligations at any one time. I invite Senators to consider this proposal for reform and support this effort to ensure a more efficient and financially sound U.S. Postal Service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cochran pertaining to the introduction of S. 1296 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Postal Financing Reform Act of 1997. This bill gives the Postal Service the authority to deposit funds in private sector institutions, invest in the open market, and borrow from private credit markets. The statutory restrictions of current law on postal finances, borrowing, and purchasing were designed for a Postal Service that required regular infusions of appropriated funds to maintain public service levels. For almost two decades now, the Postal Service has been a self-supporting system. The maintenance of U.S. Treasury control over Postal Service banking, investing, and borrowing is no longer necessary or justified. Current law prevents the Service from obtaining the most favorable combination of prices and services and results in added operating costs of over $100,000,000 annually. Under this new approach, the Treasury Department would retain much of its current oversight, but it would no longer be the sole provider of certain financial services to the Postal Service. This bill makes the relationship between the Treasury and the Postal Service similar to the relationship other government sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have with the Treasury. The bill I am introducing includes four main sections--those being sections 2 through 5. Section 2 amends title 39 of the United States Code to authorize the Postal Service to deposit its revenues in the Postal Service Fund within the U.S. Treasury or any Federal Reserve banks or depositories for public funds. The requirement to obtain the Secretary of the Treasury's approval before any funds deposited elsewhere would be eliminated. The third section terminates Treasury control of Postal Service investments. This will permit the Postal Service to invest any excess funds either in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the Government of the United States, or in such other obligations or securities as it deems advisable, provided that such investment is determined to be closely related to Postal Service operations by the Postal Board of Governors. By providing the Postal Service with an opportunity to invest in U.S. Government obligations or other obligations on its own accord without unnecessary constraints, this section of the bill would permit the Postal Service to take advantage of favorable market conditions, and give it the ability to make equity investments which fit its business strategies. Section 4 removes the control of the Secretary of the Treasury over the Postal Service's financial borrowing decisions. The Postal Service would still be required to consult with the Secretary of the Treasury regarding the terms and conditions of the sale of any obligations issued by the Postal Service under section 2006(a) of title 39, and the Secretary would still exercise a power of approval over the timing of a sale of obligations, in much the same manner as the Treasury acts as a traffic cop with regard to the timing of obligations issued by other government-sponsored enterprises. Finally, this bill removes the requirement of the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase up to $2 billion in obligations of the Postal Service. This section would still permit the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase Postal Service obligations, but only upon mutual agreement between the Secretary and the Postal Service. Removing this put on the Treasury would be consistent with the purpose of directing the Postal Service borrowing to the private sector where it would be able to take advantage of a broader market. This section would also make Treasury purchases of Postal Service obligations exempt from the various borrowing limits in title 39 of the United States Code thus enabling the Postal Service and the Treasury by mutual agreement to address an unforeseen emergency situation. Such exempt purchases would themselves be capped at $2.5 billion of outstanding obligations at any one time. I invite Senators to consider this proposal for reform and support this effort to ensure a more efficient and financially sound U.S. Postal Service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the chairman. Elderly Housing

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would like a clarification of an item included in the fiscal year 1998 Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies appropriations bill. The item on which I would like clarification was included under the Economic Development Initiative Program section of the bill and provides a grant of $1,000,000 to the city of Jackson, MS. The conference report states that the grant should be used for training facilities and equipment for a downtown multimodal transit center, phase II. The conference report incorrectly identifies what the grant is to be used for. In fact, the grant is for the acquisition and rehabilitation of facilities and related improvements for a downtown multimodal transit center, phase II, in the city of Jackson, MS. These funds are specifically to be used for the aquisition and rehabilitation of a trolley barn, downtown employee shuttle park and ride lots, and a long-term intermodal passenger parking lot. This funding will help revitalize an area of the city of Jackson that has been federally designated as an enterprise community. It is my understanding that the conference report incorrectly identified the purpose of the economic development initiative grant and that congressional intent for the $1,000,000 grant to the city of Jackson, MS, is for the purposes as I have described them. Would the chairman clarify this understanding?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the State of Mississippi is very proud of the induction of Bailey Howell into the Basketball Hall of Fame. His college career at Mississippi State University still stands as the most impressive in the school's history. He was second only to Wilt Chamberlain in the 1959 NBA draft, and he became one of the best professional players ever. Today, he is living in Starkville, MS, where he spends much of his time engaged in church-related activities. He is a wonderful role model for today's star athletes. I ask unanimous consent that two articles from the Clarion-Ledger describing his great career be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with funding jurisdiction for the Food and Drug Administration, I am compelled to state my opposition to the appropriations mandate in this bill. While this bill reauthorizes prescription drug user fees for the next 5 years, it also states that the FDA cannot assess those fees unless the appropriation for FDA salaries and expenses is at least equal to the appropriation for fiscal year 1997, adjusted for inflation. The Appropriations Subcommittee will continue to balance the needs and requirements of all agencies and activities under its jurisdiction within the total amounts available for discretionary appropriations. Any member of the Senate who disagrees with the committee's recommendations is free to seek to change the allocation of resources proposed in the bill. However, annual appropriations decisions should not be predetermined by the establishment of arbitrary appropriations ``floors'' and ``ceilings'' in authorization bills. In this particular case, the bill seeks to dictate that FDA's salaries and expenses appropriation be ``held harmless'' against inflation--that for each of the next five fiscal years, the appropriations be at least equal to the current appropriations level, adjusted for inflation. If not, FDA cannot assess prescription drug user fees. Madam President, I am certain that each agency and program which receives appropriations would like to secure a similar protection against inflation. However, this is unrealistic in the current budget environment and inconsistent with the levels available for discretionary appropriations under the bipartisan budget agreement. Industry paid fees are expected to supplement rather than supplant FDA spending for drug approvals. For this reason, I understand the industry's desire to make sure that FDA maintains its current level of effort relative to the drug approval process. However, as I indicated, it is unreasonable to attempt to guarantee FDA protection against inflation at the possible expense of other programs and activities. It would be difficult for me as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee of jurisdiction to predict what agency or program restructuring might occur over the next 5 fiscal years, what a program or agency's future resource requirements might be, or the fiscal constraints the subcommittee might face in each future year. Mr. President, it could be that the minimum mandated appropriations level in this bill is met in each of those years. However, it is just as likely that it would not be. The Appropriations Committee will continue to do its work by considering the needs of every program and agency within its jurisdiction within the total resources available to it. It will not feel constrained to meet the proposed appropriations ``trigger'' for the collection of prescription drug user fees if it remains in this bill. I do not think it is the intent of the Labor and Human Resources Committee or the Senate to set an arbitrary mandate that might result in a situation during the course of the next 5 years where these fees may not be collected. I believe this would undermine the existing drug approval process and run counter to the interests of the federal government, the industry, and the American public. The issues and concerns I raise are similar to those expressed by Senators Gregg and McConnell in the additional views they incorporated in the committee's report accompanying S. 830. Madam President, I am hopeful that the committee take this issue seriously and will work in conference to remove this appropriations mandate and possible impediment to the continued success of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate lost one of its most colorful and well liked staff members last Thursday night when my administrative assistant, Wiley Carter, died. His sudden and unexpected death at 61 years of age following surgery at a hospital in Jackson, MS, has deeply saddened us all. He began his work with me as manager of my campaign for reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974. In that turbulent election year, with his good assistance we received over 70 percent of the vote. After the election, Wiley joined my congressional staff in Mississippi where he served as my liaison to local governments and case worker. Two years later he became a member of my Washington staff and soon thereafter became my administrative assistant. During these 23 years of close association, I developed a deep appreciation for Wiley Carter. His warm good nature was constant, his loyalty never failing, and his enthusiasm an ever present inspiration. He was adept at handling constituents' problems, and he reminded all of us by his example that one of our highest priorities was to help solve the problems of the people of our State and to treat everyone who called on us with respect and courtesy. He really loved his job. He loved people. He loved politics. He loved campaigns. He loved Mississippi State University. But, most of all he loved his family. He cared about his children and his efforts to support and assist them in every possible way were well known. One experience with Wiley and his wife Gwen, and their children, and their extended family is particularly memorable for me. We were all in Starkville, MS celebrating the donation of his political memorabilia and papers to the Mississippi State University Library. The love the family members felt for each other was obvious to me, and the pride they had in seeing Wiley's career celebrated with such ceremony--well attended by many friends--was evidence of their deep appreciation of him. And, he loved every minute of it as he should have. One of his former classmates said to me, ``Where did Wiley get any papers? When he was in school at State, he didn't have any papers.'' Of course, there were a lot of clippings, photographs, and letters that had accumulated over a career dating from the organization of the Mississippi Young Democrats in the 1950's and the Carroll Gartin and John Bell Williams campaigns for Governor, to the present. The skills he developed along the way led our mutual friend, Bill Simpson, to say to me recently, ``Wiley Carter in my book is the best street politician in Mississippi.'' I didn't know whether that was such a high compliment or not until I told Wiley what Bill had said about him, and Wiley said, ``You know, that's one of the best compliments I've ever gotten.'' In this day of cynicism about politics and government, more Wiley Carters would be good to have. People who devote their energy to doing their best to make our government respond to the needs of ordinary people and respect the opinion of average citizens. Wiley engendered good will wherever he went. He warmed our hearts, and he put a smile on our faces. Without Wiley, life will not be as interesting, and political campaigns won't be the same either. He would say, for example, ``In a campaign, if you haven't heard a rumor by noon, you ought to start one.'' Wiley organized a War Room before Lee Atwater and James Carville made the term famous. He was so well-liked by so many in Mississippi and here in Washington too. A Capitol Hill policeman, Andy Anders, was one of the first Washington friends whom I called on Friday morning. Andy had taken his vacation a few years ago to come visit Mississippi at Wiley's suggestion, and Wiley gave him the royal treatment. They walked up to the State Capitol. The legislature was in session. He introduced him to Gov. Kirk Fordice, the Speaker of the House, and many others. Of course Andy was impressed and delighted. That says a lot about Wiley and his capacity and his sense of duty to reciprocate true acts of friendship and kindness. There will never be another one like him. We all are so fortunate that we have had the benefit of his unique insights into human nature and his example of loyalty to his friends and family.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Then I move the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Iowa be tabled. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I have made the arguments that I intended to make. If Senators are interested in a little more detailed discussion of the procedures and why I think it would be such an unfortunate precedent for us to reward the strategy being used by the proponent of the amendment, I invite attention to yesterday's Record. Let me just say one other thing about the effort to resolve this issue. We have plenty of room within the amount provided by the House in its version of this bill and the amount provided by the Senate in the bill that passed the Senate 99 to 0 to negotiate an appropriate level of funding for the FDA's program. We are not suggesting that this program ought not be funded, that assistance ought not be made available to States which need the assistance. But has it occurred to anybody that the States are bringing lawsuits and collecting from the tobacco companies money to do this very thing? Our State of Mississippi is the first to obtain a cash settlement with the tobacco industries, and it can use the money for a wide variety of purposes: to help defray expenses, medical expenses, that have been paid out to those who have suffered health problems because of smoking, antiteenage smoking campaigns and efforts and initiatives--and that is what this program is. Here we are asking people around the country to use their tax dollars to go to States, whether they have brought law suits, whether they have taken action--these are applicants for funds under a new FDA program that has just begun. So, I am saying there is more to this than is being discussed. There is more to this than is being admitted. Florida has just now undertaken to consummate a settlement that is similar to the one in Mississippi, and there will be others. Where has been the Department of Justice? Where is the Federal Department of Justice on these issues? Where is the proposal of the administration on these issues? We are asked to spend more taxpayer dollars, but I am not sure it is for a coherent, comprehensive way to deal with the overall issue. That is what I am suggesting. The States are doing a much better job and a much more aggressive job getting after this than we are. And an amendment is being suggested here to solve all those problems. Well, that is just not an accurate reflection of the facts, is it, Madam President? So I urge, when we make a motion to table the amendment, once all time has been used or yielded back, that the Senate vote for the motion to table to permit us to continue to consider appropriations bills in this orderly fashion so that we can expedite their consideration and be fair to all Senators who offered amendments when the Senate considered the bill. I thank the Senators very much for their careful attention to this discussion. Madam President, if all time has been used----

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, what is the situation with time? Has all the time been used by the proponent of the amendment?

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam President, one comment at the outset has to be made in response to the Senator's statement quoting from an Associated Press article which suggests I said yesterday that the effort to bring this amendment to the Senate on a second vote violates the rules of the Senate. I said no such thing yesterday. I have just completed reading my remarks as reflected in the Congressional Record of yesterday's proceedings of the Senate, and that is not contained in my remarks. What I did say was this, and I will read it again for emphasis. ``So what I am suggesting, Mr. President, as respectfully as I can, is that this is an unfortunate effort to go around the practices and the procedures that have been established for this purpose to facilitate the orderly consideration of appropriations bills, and the Senate ought to reject this effort.'' Now, let me elaborate on that. The procedure being used by the proponent of this amendment creates an unfortunate precedent. If it is rewarded by a majority of the votes on his amendment, that precedent will permit a vote on an amendment to a bill after third reading, and, after a unanimous-consent agreement has ripened, as an order limiting amendments on a bill. Using the tactic employed by the distinguished Senator and my friend from Iowa should not be rewarded by the Senate and such a precedent should not be established. The reason I am making that point as strongly as I can, and repeating what was said yesterday in the 10 minutes we had to discuss this issue, is that we had worked out a procedure for considering appropriations bills here in the Senate in advance of their being considered by the House. We had markups, in subcommittees and the full committee, of appropriations bills that had not yet passed the House. That is a departure from procedures that had been used as a matter of custom and practice in the past. The reason was to accelerate and expedite consideration of these bills so that we would not get into a situation of winding up at the end of the fiscal year, or right on the brink of the beginning of a new fiscal year, not having passed all appropriations bills because of the slowness of that earlier procedure. This was working fine. But one little nuance to permit that to work is that when the House-passed bill is received in the Senate, we have to get unanimous consent to hold it at the desk, and then call it up, substitute the Senate action on the appropriations bill for the language of the House-passed bill, and have it passed as amended by the Senate action. We have already had third reading of the Senate bill; we have already adopted all the amendments; we have had orders limiting those amendments; and then the Senator decides to use this opportunity. Under the Senate rules, he is right. Under the Senate rules, any Senator can object to a unanimous-consent request, and that is what he did. The difference is that it was understood that when we completed action on the Senate bill, we would then take up the House-passed bill, substitute the Senate action on it, adopt it, and go to conference. So it was at that little point in the procedure that the Senator decided to use a new tactic, and that is why we are having to vote another time, a second time, on an amendment that was disposed of during the consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill. We passed the bill on July 24. Here we are in September having to vote on an amendment virtually the same with a different offset. The offset is described as defective and flawed in a statement made by Senator Domenici that is in the Record of yesterday. I invite the attention of Senators on that subject. What it does, in effect, is instead of spending money in this next fiscal year, we will postpone it to the following fiscal year, and that is scored by CBO as an offset. Are you kidding? There is a statutory maximum to spend, a mandate for computer operations to be funded at the Department of Agriculture. So the offset, while the CBO scores it--and we continue to live under this very interesting obligation to honor, cherish, and obey the decisions of CBO on these issues, the wisdom of the Senate or the will of the Senate notwithstanding--we are bound to respect the CBO decision on whether or not this is an effective offset of the new spending. The arguments about whether you are for or against smoking--really, we are all for doing everything possible to persuade young people, minors, not to smoke. That is not the issue here. This program by FDA provides some funds to States to help enforce State rules and laws and Federal regulations on sales of tobacco to minors. Only a few States are even getting this money. I mean, the whole point of this argument suggests that the substance of the amendment deals with that issue in some important or dramatic way. It does not. The point is, this money, this account, will be negotiated in conference. All Senators understand that. The House has a higher number than the Senate has. We have higher numbers for other things like agricultural research and some other important initiatives protecting farmers, trying to do something about production agriculture and the efficiency and the yields that our farmers can achieve on their crops to remain globally competitive. This is a big bill. It has WIC money, which is very important. A lot of nutrition programs are funded in this bill at higher levels than the House recommends. So, what I am saying is that we don't agree with the House on every part of the bill. That is why we are going to conference. But to permit this procedure to prevail and have us vote on the same amendment we have already disposed of, I think should be rejected. We are not going to be able to continue the procedures we followed if we reward this strategy, this tactic, this use or abuse of the procedures that we have been following.