Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have looked at the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Kansas. I must say, it is targeted to a very narrow issue, and it seeks to withhold only $4 million of a $64 million account which is appropriated or recommended for appropriation in this bill for the administration of the Risk Management Agency that has a responsibility for administering the crop insurance program. I am not going to oppose this amendment. I sympathize with the goal. I sympathize with the effort to get the attention of the administration to do something that was required of them in the 1994 act of Congress. I am hopeful the Senate will approve the amendment and that this will help achieve the goal of the distinguished Senator from Kansas. Let me also say, too, I am very grateful for his generous comments about the work of our subcommittee and the efforts we have made to present a bill that reflects the needs of our country in connection with agriculture and agricultural production and all of those other activities that are funded in the legislation. He is very kind to point out that we have worked hard. He has been a big help, too, in certainly helping us understand the provisions that were contained in the last passed farm bill, which he had a great deal to do with writing as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. We are lucky to have him in the Senate, and we appreciate his continued advice and counsel and assistance in these matters.

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no objection to this amendment. It has been cleared. We recommend that it be approved.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment offered for myself and in behalf of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers]. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask that it be approved by the Senate.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I object to any further proceeding on this matter at this time.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are several amendments which have been brought to our attention that we know will be offered by Senators. We invite those Senators to come to the floor now and present their amendments for the consideration of the Senate. Some of them we expect to recommend approval; others we will have to oppose. We hope that we can begin that process soon so we can complete action on all amendments so that we can have votes on those amendments and final passage of the bill at 4 o'clock this afternoon. That is our goal. We need the cooperation and assistance of all Senators in order to achieve that goal. Let me say, in connection with the provisions of the bill, some of which the Senator from Arkansas mentioned specifically, I am particularly pleased we were able to continue funding for a lot of the traditional programs of the Department of Agriculture, which, because they are not new, because they do not seem innovative, are often overlooked or taken for granted. One that comes to mind is the Extension Service. We have seen a lot of changes in the Extension Service over the years, and we have tried to give that service the funds they need to carry out what many consider to be services and benefits that are not often applauded or recognized. We have seen so many new developments in technology and in modern science that we are able now to utilize in our rural communities and on our farms that have really elevated the standard of living in rural America to a point that is really quite impressive. We need a lot of things done that have not been done, but that is one of the agencies that, in my judgment, has done a great deal to help make life more livable, more enjoyable, and enrich the lives of many people every day because of the work that has been done. Another area that seems to me important to mention is the protection of our environment, our soil and water resources. The funds for conservation programs are increased because of the growing importance of developing new technologies, new ways to deal with pests and other problems in production of agriculture in an environmentally sensitive way. All of that is reflected in this legislation--those ambitions, those goals, and the importance of protecting the safety and health of those who live in rural America. We think the research activities done by the Agricultural Research Service also merit special mention. There are a lot of new things being undertaken by agricultural research scientists that offer great promise in terms of food safety, in reducing the necessity for using some products on our farms that many consider to have the potential for harming health and human safety. We are trying to make these changes and these improvements in agriculture possible through the development of new discoveries and new applications of science in agriculture. That is the agency that the Federal Government has charged with the responsibility of concentrating in that area. We also are developing, in concert with the legislative committees in the House and Senate, a level of funding of over $100 million for a comprehensive research effort that is new and recently authorized in the farm bill that was passed 2 years ago. We are hopeful that this will mean a more coherent approach to research and a more effective approach. Some worry about our spending too much money for so-called basic research and not enough money for applied research. The line between those two efforts has been blurred, and, in some cases, it is hard to distinguish between one kind and another. We appreciate the input we have received from those throughout the country who have presented information and have made their views known to the committee on that subject. This bill reflects an effort to bring together the best suggestions that we have had on that subject to have a more effective and more successful research effort for the betterment of our country. With the hope that other Senators will come to the floor and present amendments or suggested changes or comments on this legislation, I am prepared to yield the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the generous comments by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas about our work together on this bill and my contributions to the effort. It has been a genuine pleasure working with him. I have considered it one of the highlights of my career in the Senate of getting to know him personally and serving with him on the Appropriations Committee, as we have for these last 18 years. corrections to senate report 105-51 Mr. President, I would like to reflect for the record the following corrections to Senate Report 105-51 accompanying S. 1033, the fiscal year 1998 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The table on page 36 of the report should properly reflect that the committee recommends a $200,000 Federal administration grant to the ``Center for Human Nutrition (Maryland)'' rather than the ``Center for Hawaiian Nutrition (Maryland).'' On page 37, the first paragraph should reflect a total recommendation of ``$47,525,000'' for special research grants under Public Law 89-106 rather than ``$46,525,000''. In the table on pages 42-43 of the report, the committee recommended total for ``Agricultural quarantine inspection'' under ``Pest and disease exclusion'' should be ``26,747'' rather than ``28,547'', making the subtotal for agricultural quarantine inspection ``126,747''; and the committee recommended total for ``Biological control'' under ``pest and disease management programs'' should be ``6,090'' rather than ``6,290'', making the subtotal for pest and disease management ``96,281''. And, on page 76, delete ``the University of Colorado Health Science Center telemedicine project, Colorado,'' from the list of rural business enterprise grants which the committee encourages the Department to consider. Further, I would like to clarify that the $275,100 in the first paragraph on page 24 of the report for the University of Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for the collaboration work on developing and evaluating efficacious and nontoxic methods to control tephritid fruit flies is the net amount currently going to the location, rather than the gross amount.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present for the Senate's consideration today S. 1033, the fiscal year 1998 Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill provides fiscal year 1998 funding for all programs and activities of the U.S. 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 1998 of $50.7 billion. This is $3.2 billion less than the fiscal year 1997 enacted level, and $1.6 billion less than the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request. Reductions in mandatory funding requirements account for the overall decrease below the fiscal year 1997 enacted level, principally reflecting lower Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Program costs due to the enactment of welfare reform. Even with these reductions, $38 billion, or approximately 75 percent of the total $50.7 billion recommended by this bill, will go to funding the Nation's domestic food assistance programs in fiscal year 1998. These include the Food Stamp Program; the national school lunch and elderly feeding programs; and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children [WIC]. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior- year spending actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.791 billion in budget authority and $14.039 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998. These amounts are consistent with the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations. The committee continues to place priority on increasing food safety to ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food in the world. The bill provides $591 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $17 million above the fiscal year 1997 level. This will enable the Food Safety and Inspection Service to maintain the current inspection system and to provide the needed investments required to implement the new hazard analysis and critical control point [HACCP] meat and poultry inspection system. In addition, the bill provides the increased funds requested as part of the President's $43 million governmentwide food safety initiative. This include the full $1.1 million proposed for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the $4 million increase proposed for Agricultural Research Service food safety research, and $24 million in addition funds for food safety initiatives of the Food and Drug Administration. For agriculture research, the bill provides total appropriations of $1.6 billion, approximately $37 million below the fiscal year 1997 level. Included in this amount is a reduction of $62 million, reflecting termination of funding for buildings and facilities of the Corporate State Research, Education, and Extension Service; and a $27 million total increase for agriculture research and education activities. The total amount provided for the Agricultural Research Service continues funding for most of the agency's current research activities, and approves nearly $24 million of the increased funding requested to meet priority research needs, including research focusing on human nutrition, food safety, emerging diseases, and genetics resources. This additional amount includes $5 million for the survey of food intakes by children and infants required in response to the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The recommended funding for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service includes a $2 million reduction in funding for special research grants, an increase of $1.8 million for pesticide clearance, and $100 million, a $6 million increase above the 1997 level, for the National Research Initiative competitive grants programs. Appropriations for formula programs, including the Smith- Lever and Hatch programs, are maintained at 1997 levels. For farm credit programs, the bill funds an estimated $2.9 billion total loan program level, including $460 million for farm ownership loans and $2.4 million for farm operating loans. Total funding of $912 million is recommended for the Farm Service Agency, $44 million less than the 1997 level. The Department has worked in 1997 to achieve program efficiencies. As a result, we are assured that the funding recommended in this bill will prevent further personnel reductions during fiscal year 1998. The committee also has given increased attention to the need to 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 $3.5 billion, a $60 million net increase above the fiscal year 1997 appropriations level. This includes funding to support $1.0 billion in section 502 low-income housing direct loans and $129 million in section 515 rental housing loans. In addition, a total appropriations level of $541 million is recommended for the rental assistance program. This is the same as the requested level and $48 million more than the 1997 appropriation. The budget also proposed that an additional $52 million be provided to convert Housing and Urban Development Agency [HUD] section 8 rental assistance to USDA-financed rental assistance. While this proposal may have merit and yield long-term savings, the committee was not able to afford this further increase within its discretionary spending allocation. As an alternative, we would encourage the administration to work to fund this proposed conversion through the section 8 housing program. For USDA conservation programs, total funding of $828 million is provided, $57 million more than the 1997 level. This includes $730 million for conservation operations, and $47.7 million for the resource conservation and development program. USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service is funded at a level of $136.7 million, and a total program level of $1.1 million is recommended for the Public Law 480 program. The bill also provides a total level of $2.1 billion for rural economic and community development programs. Included in this amount is $644 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program authorized in the 1996 farm bill, consolidating funding for 12 existing rural housing, utilities, and business cooperative programs of the Department of Agriculture. The bill, as recommended, also appropriates $3.9 billion for the WIC Program and provides up to $12 million for the farmers market nutrition program. The recommended WIC appropriation level is $122 million above the 1997 level and will be sufficient to maintain the current average WIC Program participation level in fiscal year 1998. Also included in the bill is a provision to ensure the continuation of infant formula WIC Program rebate savings, and to provide the authority requested by the administration to give the Secretary of Agriculture discretion in allocating WIC funds. Further, the bill restores funding for the Pesticide Data Program, and provides the increased funds needed in fiscal year 1998 to conduct the Census of Agriculture. It also includes the full $202 million required to pay agents' sales commissions under the crop insurance program. Under current law, this shifts these costs from the mandatory to the discretionary side of the ledger beginning in fiscal year 1998. This places an added demand on the limited discretionary dollars available to the subcommittee. We have accommodated this new requirement, in part, through a limitation on the export enhancement program. This is a short-term fix. I am hopeful that this will not become a permanent burden on discretionary spending, and that a long-term legislative solution will be found to pay for this expense. For those independent agencies funded by the bill, the committee provides the budget request level of $60.1 million, an increase of $5.0 million above fiscal year 1997 level, for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It provides a $34.4 million limitation on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration, as requested in the budget. And, it recommends total appropriations of $913 million for the Food and Drug Administration, $25.5 million more than the fiscal year 1997 level. This increase includes the full $24 million requested for FDA food safety initiatives and the $1.5 million increase requested for FDA buildings and facilities requirements. Only 27 percent of the total funding recommended by this bill is discretionary, subject to the annual control of this subcommittee. As I indicated previously, this bill accommodates increased funding required for such programs as WIC, crop insurance delivery expenses, rural housing, food safety, and other pressing program needs. Mr. President, arriving at these funding recommendations always requires a number of difficult decisions. I would like to 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 together this bill. Mr. President, I believe this bill represents a balanced and responsible set of funding recommendations within the limited resources available to the subcommittee, and I hope Senators will support it. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, this bill is consistent with the allocations under the Budget Act that have been made to this subcommittee. We have worked very hard to identify the priorities that Senators have suggested and were in hearings on the budget proposals submitted by the President during the last several months. This has been an effort which has involved the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Bumpers, all of the members of our subcommittee, and our staffs. And all have contributed very substantively to the work that has led to the presentation of this bill today. We have increased funding for some of the areas where we thought there was justification for doing more in discretionary spending to help improve the services provided by the Government, such as in food safety, in agriculture research to make our farms more efficient and farming more profitable. We have increased funding to maintain the current participation caseload in the WIC Program, for example. And there are other areas. But I mention those three to illustrate that the committee has identified priority areas where we have provided increases. But overall, this bill reflects a reduction in spending from last year's level and a reduction in proposed spending for the next fiscal year below the request submitted in the President's budget. So we are trying to do our part to reduce the deficit and to control spending and to make those hard choices that are necessary if we are to in fact balance the budget. We think that the bill reflects a fair and thoughtful balance among the various needs that are sought to be met in this appropriations bill. We hope that Senators who do have suggested amendments will come to the floor soon during the consideration of this bill so that we can complete action on the legislation today. The leader has suggested that votes will probably not occur before 4 o'clock so that if there are amendments which require votes we are going to ask unanimous consent that those votes be stacked to occur beginning at 4 o'clock. And it is my hope that at the same time we can vote for final passage on the bill at that time or following votes on amendments. So with that in mind, I am very happy to yield the floor for the purpose of any amendments that Senators may have or for any comments any Senator, and especially the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, the ranking member of the committee, might have. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I add to that unanimous consent request, at the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, to ask unanimous-consent they be granted floor privileges during the votes, if any, that may occur in relation to S. 1033.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff members and intern be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this bill, S. 1033: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, Rachelle Graves-Bell, Galen Fountain, Carole Geagley, and Justin Brasell.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Jeffords, is correct. I would note that the bill before us does not allow the collection of Mammography Standards Act or PDUFA fees in the absence of authorizing legislation from the Labor Committee being approved by the Congress and signed into law. Further, I am well aware of the Senator's efforts to bring a bill reauthorizing PDUFA and modernizing the FDA to the floor and strongly agree that reform of the Agency and PDUFA reauthorization must go forward together. I look forward to debating these issues in the full Senate in the near future.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the kind remarks of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota in connection with the fact that the program discussed by him, and which is the subject of his amendment, was not in any way reduced in funding by the action of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee or the full Committee on Appropriations. As a matter of fact, we tried very hard to identify needs in the nutrition area, including the school lunch programs, child nutrition programs, food stamps, Women, Infants and Children feeding program, and others. I think Senators will notice that there are substantial increases in funding for WIC, for example, to make sure there is a full participation permitted next year, and that means we had to add $200 million more to that account to help guarantee that no one participating in the WIC Program now would be denied eligibility or participation due to a lack of funding next year. And in every other way, we tried to look at the evidence before the committee that we had available to us during our hearings to assess the needs and to make available the funds that we thought were necessary to help make sure that all Americans have access to a nutritious diet, that the food supply is safe, and that, in every respect, we continue to make sure that people in our society do not have to go without food. Having said that, the Senator is correct in that there are still a lot of unmet needs, there are still a lot of problems. We can identify areas of the country that have special needs. I am sympathetic to those needs and assure all Senators that this committee will continue to try to work to alleviate those needs. The amendment addresses language that was adopted by the Senate and eventually contained in legislation signed by the President that modified a lot of the programs that do provide assistance to individuals. In the welfare reform effort, there were a number of the laws that were modified, some under the jurisdiction of our Agriculture Committee--this was one of them--that were made necessary through the establishment of spending ceilings in certain program areas. Our committee had the unwelcome task in many cases of identifying programs that could be helpful in some areas of the country but, for various reasons, maybe the States or local school districts, it was thought, could do the things that the Federal Government had previously been trying to do. And this is one area. Outreach is very important. School districts, local communities, State governments all have resources, all have very dedicated people leading them in elected positions and in every way are available to help deal with problems that the Senator from Minnesota has discussed. I do not know what the disposition of the legislative committee will be on this amendment, whether it will suggest that it ought to be accepted or resisted. We are consulting with the leaders of the legislative committee, and we understand that they will continue to look at this and maybe tomorrow when we return to consideration of this amendment in the morning when we convene, there may be a better understanding of what the response will be at that time. But at this point, I am willing to let the Senator continue to discuss his amendment if he likes. He has the right to do that under the order that has been entered, and we will be happy to continue to work with him on this and other issues that he is interested in.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield back the remainder of my time. I move to table the Bryan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I urge that the amendment be defeated. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a copy of a letter to me from the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports that I referred to in my remarks.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself the additional 10 minutes. I was just handed a chart that shows how much money comparatively is being spent on export or market promotion by the European Union as compared with how much we are spending in the United States of taxpayer funds for the same purpose. I do not have one of these big charts on an easel, and I don't know if everybody can see this, but this big colored part of the chart here is how much is spent by the European Union, and it is $10.11 billion. This is this year. You cannot see anything on the other side except white, but if you look very, very carefully, you can see just a little bit of a line here and it is $0.15 billion. And the Senator is trying to cut that further. Now, think about it. The European Union is spending more money promoting the sale of wine than we are spending as a nation in our Federal programs on all of our United States-produced commodities and foodstuffs that are being sold in the overseas markets. Think about it. And this program is available only to trade associations, cooperatives and small businesses. Think about it. Now, this is getting ridiculous. We have changed this program every time it has come up, or changes have been attempted every time it has come up. It has been reformed and modified and refocused. We are trying to give the Department of Agriculture some funds to use in situations where our exporters are being denied access to markets or are being unfairly treated in some way by barriers that are being erected to prevent the sale of United States-produced agriculture foodstuffs and commodities. Whose side are we on, for goodness sakes? Think about this. We are being asked to cut the program more and to limit it more so it is tied down tighter than you can imagine. Finally, I think those who ask for access to these funds, these market access program funds are going to finally give up. It is going to be so much red-tape, so many new rules and regulations, that it is going to take a whole firm of lawyers to figure out how to get some of these funds to use if you need them. I am hoping that the Senate will say OK, enough is enough. In the farm bill of last year--year before last--language was used to try to define as carefully as could be the authority for using these funds, and the amount of money was not given any discretion at all in terms of the appropriations process. It was directed in the farm bill that $90 million be spent or made available to the Department of Agriculture to spend under these tightly constricted and restrained definitions. Now the Senator is saying the appropriations bill, because it does not limit the expenditure of these funds that are directed, ought to be amended so that it will, and that there ought to be further limitations on the spending. I say I think enough is enough. We have reformed the program. There is a coalition of exporters that has written me a letter again saying that the Senate, they understand, may have to consider another amendment to further reduce or eliminate funding for the Market Access Program. A similar amendment was defeated last year, they point out in this letter. The program has been substantially reformed and reduced; it is targeted toward farmer-owned cooperatives, small businesses and trade associations; it is administered on a cost-share basis with farmers and ranchers and other participants; they are required to contribute as much as 50 percent toward the program costs; on and on and on. Here is a list of all of those who are a part of this coalition, double-spaced columns here, a whole page of U.S. agriculture producers and growers trying to sell our share in the world market. Exports have become so important to U.S. agriculture. There are markets out there that are growing and expanding. There are opportunities for us. They create jobs here in the United States for our U.S. citizens. Vote for America for a change. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I know of no other Senators who are seeking recognition on this issue. Might I inquire how much time remains under the order on the amendment?

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One part of the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Nevada suggests that foreign corporations should not be eligible for funds under this provision of our bill. Our bill does not contain any language relating to this program because we are not limiting the spending of funds that are directed by the legislative language in the farm bill. The last farm bill that was passed directs that funds be made available by the Department of Agriculture for this program in the amount of $90 million. Our bill does not limit the use of those funds. It does not any further restrict the use of those funds. The amendment the Senator has offered will change existing legislative language. I want to read the amendment. Funds made available to carry out this section shall not be used to provide direct assistance to any foreign for-profit corporation, or the corporation's use in promoting foreign- produced products. It shall not be used to provide direct assistance to any for-profit corporation that is not recognized as a small business concern described in section 3(a) of the Small Business Act, ``excluding a cooperative . . . an association described in the first section of the act,'' et cetera--``. . . a nonprofit trade association.'' So the whole point is that this program has been reformed, reformed, and reformed. The Senator from Nevada just cannot be pleased that this program continues to be authorized and funded and funded. Our committee is simply letting the funds be used, as directed by law, by the Department of Agriculture. So what he is suggesting is cut the funds that are directed by law to be spent by the Department of Agriculture on this program, and to further restrict them with additional legislative language. What amount of reform is going to be enough? I mean it gets to the point where I suggest we are nit-picking this program now. Once upon a time there were charts in here with McDonald's hamburger signs saying that they were benefiting from this program, and we were appropriating money that was being used by huge corporations to increase their sales. All the program was ever designed to do was to combat unfair trade practices overseas in foreign markets where we were trying to compete for our share of the market in the sale of agriculture commodities and food products. We were giving the Department of Agriculture money. It was called the Targeted Export Assistance Program first. Then it was the Market Promotion Program. Now it is the Market Access Program. We can't even get the right name so that it is acceptable. So the Senator continues to make changes. I think we ought to just say this program is working. It is increasing sales of U.S. farm-produced commodities in overseas markets. There is a limited amount of money available. It is prescribed by law. Everyone here had a chance to debate the farm bill. We had a chance to debate all of the limiting language that any Senator wanted to offer. And that was done. It is over with. It is not being abused anymore, if it ever was. It is not being subjected to any kind of abuse that I know anything about. So my suggestion to the Senate is to table this amendment and get on with the consideration of the rest of the bill. It is not necessary to adopt it to seek any reforms that need to be made. So I am hoping the Senate will reject the amendment and vote for the motion to table. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.