Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am just one Senator. I am trying to help get this bill passed and get this issue resolved, and I hope that that can be embraced by the proponents of both sides.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the issue here was joined with the offering of the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Iowa. It is an amendment related to the Food and Drug Administration's funds for an antismoking regulatory program that has been developed and put out by the Food and Drug Administration. The issue is whether or not there is sufficient funds in the FDA account to help pay the cost of this regulatory program. Some Senators may not be aware of the fact that we have increased in this legislation the proposed funding for FDA by over $20 million. As a matter of fact, I think the total is around $30 million--$24 million for the FDA account for this next fiscal year. This is in comparison with this current year's funding level. So there are funds available to carry out the additional food safety initiatives that the Food and Drug Administration has proposed. There is a specified $4.9 million available, the same amount as last year, for the FDA's smoking regulatory program, or antismoking regulatory program. One thing that has to be kept in mind, I think, to try to understand, get a perspective on this issue is that litigation is underway. There was a lawsuit filed in North Carolina. Some of the regulatory initiatives of the FDA were upheld and some are on appeal. Mr. President, the other aspect of this issue is that there has been a negotiated settlement among attorneys general and the tobacco industry that involves the commitment of the tobacco industry to make certain payments to help pay health costs and Food and Drug Administration activities in connection with the use of tobacco and trying to convince people that smoking tobacco is bad for you. This bill does not in any way try to adversely affect or take away from any initiative of that kind. We did say, when we were discussing this legislation in the subcommittee and at the full committee, that we assumed some funds could be made available from the tobacco industry to help pay costs that might not be fully funded in this legislation, costs of the Food and Drug Administration. So we see nothing wrong with making that assumption in our bill. The Harkin amendment imposes an assessment on tobacco companies that would cause funds then to be created that could then be given to the FDA for additional program costs. The Senator from North Carolina has offered a second-degree amendment changing the source of the funding from the assessment to an ethanol assessment, so that the funds would come from the ethanol program, in effect, for the antismoking program of FDA. And so there is where we stand now. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the Helms amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the Harkin amendment. And so that is the situation as I understand it. There was a suggestion that one way to deal with this is to put it before the Senate in the form of a motion to table the Harkin amendment. Now, I could make that motion, but I do not want to make that motion and cut off the right of Senators who want to speak on this issue. And I understand from the Senator from Iowa that he might want to speak further on it. The Senator from Rhode Island is a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment and he wanted to speak. So I am reluctant to make that motion. But it would be my hope that we could resolve the issue in that way. If that is not satisfactory to the Senate, the Senate can work its will. But that is the suggestion that I have for dealing with the issue, of wrapping it all up in one vote, if the motion to table is approved. If the motion to table is not approved, then we have a vote on the Helms amendment and we have a vote on the Harkin amendment. So that is my suggestion for how we can wrap it all up.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate? Amendment No. 969, as Modified

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that we have 2 minutes, equally divided, on the motion to table the Durbin Amendment. I made the motion to table. The Durbin Amendment seeks to do away with crop insurance payments for tobacco farmers and any disaster assistance payments that might fall due under the law. I moved to table it. It carried with it a second degree amendment by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], which limits crop insurance payments to farms 400 acres or smaller. So, as you may see, unless we table the Durbin amendment, you are going to cause a lot of disruptions in agriculture for two reasons. I hope that the Senate will vote to table this amendment. This is an agriculture appropriations bill. Both of these amendments would change the law, not funding levels. Let's stick to the purpose of our bill and please vote to table the Durbin amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. And that is the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, is that correct?

Mr. COCHRAN. But now there is a request pending that there be an up- or-down vote on both amendments; is that a correct understanding of the request?

Mr. COCHRAN. Further inquiring of the Chair, there have been two unanimous-consent requests granted, or there have been the yeas and nays ordered on two amendments.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, this is a new request, as I understand it. Parliamentary inquiry. Would this Senator have the right, for example, when Senators have indicated that they do not care to debate the issue any further, to move to table the underlying amendment and get the yeas and nays and have a vote on the motion to table the underlying amendment?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:45 a.m. on Thursday, July 24. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 1033, the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 1997, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on: The proposed reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee special investigation to meet on Wednesday, July 23, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on campaign financing issues.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to broadly examine three aspects of natural gas issues into the next century. Specifically, the committee will look at world energy supply and demand to 2015, what percentage of that will be filled by natural gas, and how this could be impacted by other large scale energy projects, such as nuclear, that are being developed in Asia. Second, the committee will examine the role of Government in large scale gas projects in foreign countries, what type of assistance the U.S. companies competing for overseas projects receive from the U.S. Government, and what can be done in the United States to make American gas more globally competitive. The third aspect for consideration will be the emerging gas field development technologies that are making natural gas more economical to market.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending nominations.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 23, 1997, at 9:30 A.M. on pending committee business.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 1997, to conduct a hearing on the oversight on the monetary policy report to Congress pursuant to the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A to consider the nominations of Dr. Catherine E. Woteki, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety; Ms. Shirley Robinson Watkins, of Arkansas, to be Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and a member of the Commodity Credit Corporation; Mr. August Schumacher, Jr., of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services; Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez, of New Mexico, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, which has jurisdiction over postal matters, I would like to comment on Representative Molinari's Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, H.R. 1585, passed by the House on July 22, 1997. This bill is similar to the Feinstein amendment included as part of the Senate's fiscal year 1998 Treasury/Postal appropriations bill, S. 1023, in that it would raise money for breast cancer research through a new, specially designed postage stamp--generally referred to as a semipostal--which would be purchased on a voluntary basis and as an alternative to regular first-class postage. H.R. 1585 differs from the Feinstein amendment in three respects. The rate of this semipostal would be determined in part, by the Postal Service to cover administrative costs and the remainder by the governors of the Postal Service to direct research. The total cost would not exceed the current cost plus 25 percent. In addition, following the 2-year period beginning on the date which the stamp would be publicly available, the General Accounting Office would report to Congress with an evaluation of the effectiveness and appropriateness of this method of fundraising and a description of the resources required to carry out this bill. Finally, the Postal Service would have the authority to decide when the stamp would be available to the public and would have up until 12 months after the date of enactment to make it available. Though this is a well-intentioned bill, and breast cancer research is a highly worthwhile cause, the idea of using the Postal Service as a fundraising organization for social issues is just plain wrong. If we start here, where do we stop? The list of diseases is endless. Requiring the Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp for breast cancer would place the Postal Service and Congress in the very difficult position of determining which worthy organizations should receive Federal assistance in fundraising and which should not. The concept of semipostals has been around for years. Some nations issue them, however most do not. The European experience with this kind of stamp has shown that they are rarely as beneficial to the designated organization as would be expected. Consider the example set by our neighbor Canada. In 1975, the Canadian Postal Corporation issued a series of semipostal stamps to provide supplementary revenue for the Canadian Olympic Committee. It was reported that while the program received exceptionally good promotional and advertising support, it fell short of its intended revenue objective. Demand for the semipostals throughout Canada was reportedly insubstantial. The program--viewed as a failure--concluded in 1976. More recently, the Canada Post issued a semipostal to support literacy. With a surcharge of 5-cents per stamp, it raised only $252,000. After raising only a modest amount of money, combined with a tremendous administrative expense, Canada Post says they will not issue another semipostal. There is a strong U.S. tradition of private fundraising for charities. Such a stamp would effectively use the United States Postal Service as a fundraiser, a role it has never before taken on. The Postal Service's job--and expertise--is mail delivery. Congress should be mindful that the postage stamp pays strictly for postal operations. It is not a fee for anything but delivering the mail and the cost of running the service. In fact, section 3622 of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 precludes charging rates in excess of those required to offset the Postal Service's costs of providing a particular service. In other words, the Postal Service does not have the authority to put a surcharge on a postage rate that is cost and overhead driven. There is simply no legitimate connection between the desire to raise money for a cause, and maintenance of the Postal Service's mission of providing universal service at a universal rate. The goals of H.R. 1585 are laudatory. But, Mr. President, as I previously indicated during Senate consideration of the Feinstein semipostal amendment, the Postal Service should not be doing fundraising.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. At the request of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, that concludes action on the Agriculture appropriations bill that is contemplated for this evening. Under the order that has been entered, there will be consideration of specified amendments tomorrow morning, and then we will vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, that statements of the Senators accompanying the amendments be printed in the Record, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.