Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the previous order I now move to table amendment No. 4967. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the order, I now move to table amendment No. 4995. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair. This means that there is opportunity for further debate on these amendments between now and 11 a.m. So it protects that right. If other Senators want to talk about other amendments they can certainly do that as well.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in an effort to clarify the situation we have two amendments that had been offered and debated last night by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum]. And to advise Senators of a specific time when they can expect a vote to occur under the order there was to be no vote this morning before the hour of 11 a.m. But it will be my intention to have votes on motions to table the Santorum amendments beginning at 11 a.m. Under the order entered last night by the majority leader there was to be 4 minutes of time available for debate on those peanut amendments before the votes would occur. So, hoping to clarify when these votes will occur, I am going to propound a unanimous-consent agreement which has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that time between now and 11 a.m. be equally divided on Santorum amendments Nos. 4995 and 4967, and at 11 a.m. I be recognized to move to table amendment No. 4995, as under the previous order, to be followed immediately by a motion to table amendment No. 4967.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope we can accept the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado. He has made a substantial change in the proposal that he is making to accommodate concerns of others, including the administration and other Senators who expressed concerns earlier. We are trying to clear the amendment. We are not able at this time to announce whether or not we will be able to take it on a voice vote. I hope other Senators will come to the floor and offer their amendments. We have a number of amendments that should be offered and resolved. We would appreciate very much the cooperation of the Senators in that regard. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we made good progress yesterday afternoon and last evening in the debate of several amendments. We resolved some of the issues that were presented to us in the form of amendments. We have votes ordered on amendments which will begin at 11 a.m. We have pending other amendments that have been debated on which the yeas and nays have not been ordered but which may require rollcall votes. There are also some on the list of amendments that are in order that are yet to be offered. We hope that Senators who are planning to offer those amendments will please come to the floor as soon as possible so we can begin consideration of those amendments. Let me say this in addition to comments that have already been made about one pending amendment. I think the first amendment that was offered that has not been resolved and on which the yeas and nays have not yet been ordered is an amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Bryan], to limit the funds available to the Department for the Market Access Program in the next fiscal year to $70 million. I think that is what the amendment seeks to do. I feel constrained to point out that since this bill was considered by the Senate last year, in last year's appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, we enacted a farm bill which has been signed by the President which is now the law. The 1996 farm bill reduced the authorized mandatory funding level from $110 million to $90 million annually. It also prohibits funding for non-U.S. for-profit corporations, and for foreign-produced products. Funding for the Market Access Program is limited to small businesses, nonprofit trade associations, and cooperatives. I was not excited about the reduction in the authorization level that was made by the legislative committee. But, nonetheless, it is a fact. The way the law is written now, there will be spent--there ``shall'' be spent--the sum of $90 million annually on market access promotion. So that leaves the Senate with a new set of facts. The argument has been made that we cut funding in the previous years, and the Senate did approve reductions in funding. But the Senate also was a party to the writing of that farm bill. There were amendments offered on the subject of the funding level. The conference report contained the funding level of $90 million, and that was signed by the President. That ought to be considered and understood by the Senate before we vote on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada. I am not suggesting that it is inappropriate for him to offer that amendment. I am just pointing out that the Senate has already decided that issue. They decided the issue when the farm bill was written and that provision was included in the farm bill. I put in the Record a copy of a letter that was written to me as chairman of the subcommittee by a coalition of groups and associations who are interested in export promotion and who know how important funds of this kind are to our efforts to deal with unfair trade practices and efforts by foreign competitors to keep us out of markets, to deny us market share. It is a tough competitive environment out there. The global economy has been made more competitive because of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Uruguay Round Agreement that has broken down barriers to trade and prohibited a number of trading practices that in the past had made it impossible for us to compete in some markets. But now that the playing field has been made more level and access has been made more available, we are seeing other countries increase the amount of funding and activity in this kind of effort to enlarge market share and to create market access for their agriculture commodities and foodstuff. Some countries spend as much on promoting just one kind of foodstuff as we have to appropriate and make available for the Foreign Agriculture Service to go around to all commodities and foodstuffs that are exported by the United States. But in spite of that, we are doing well. We are increasing our dollar volume of export sales. This year it is estimated that we will sell 60 billion dollars worth of U.S. agriculture commodities and foodstuffs in the international marketplace. That is a tremendous amount of volume. It means jobs here in America. It means better pay. It means a healthier economy for the United States. This is the only program of its type that makes funds available to promote specific commodities or brand-name items in the international market. I have talked in our Embassies in other countries to those who have had experience with the use of these funds in special situations, and they tell me that it is very effective and without this program we would end up losing out to other competitors from other countries that are competing in those markets. So it seems to me, Mr. President, we ought not limit the funding for this program with the adoption of the Bryan amendment. I hope that the additional information that I have been able to give the Senate on that subject is helpful. Senators have voted on this issue time and time again in various forms. My good friend from Arkansas is one of the most eloquent and persuasive Senators who take the other side of the issue, and so it is with some trepidation and the knowledge that I am going to have a rebuttal here on my hands that I rose this morning to give that additional information. But it is important for the Senate to understand the difference between the state of the funding question and the issue this year as compared to last year when we voted on a number of different amendments designed to change this program and reform it. It has been reformed. It has been changed. There are limitations now on the eligibility for funds from the Foreign Agriculture Service for these purposes. Associations are still eligible for these funds. Small businesses can get funds to promote their products in overseas trade. But a major complaint and the thing that made this program controversial has been reformed by law with the enactment of the farm bill earlier this year. I am hopeful that we will not keep beating on this program and slandering it and causing Senators to have to vote to cut the program. It is mandated by law that it will be funded at $90 million a year, and the changes have been made that reform the program and take care of some of the complaints that had been levied against it in the past. At some point I will move to table that amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, but I do not want to do that and cut off the right of any other Senator to speak on the issue, particularly the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], who is the author of the amendment. He did not know I was going to say these things this morning. I did not know that I was going to say them either, but it occurred to me that this has not been the subject of any discussion except the few minutes of debate we had when he first proposed the amendment. And it was the first amendment, one of the first amendments proposed to the bill, and it seems like that has been a long time ago. I think it was a long time ago. We need to wrap this bill up. We are going to start voting at 11, and I am not sure how many votes we are going to have. We have, I know, two peanut amendments that Senator Santorum offered last night. The yeas and nays have been ordered on those. Senator Kerrey has an amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. We approved two of his amendments. Maybe he will withdraw this one. Two-thirds--that is pretty good--of what he wanted he has gotten. So I hope Senators will come to the floor. I see the Senator from Colorado here, and I am prepared to yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the final passage of the bill.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now have a series of amendments which I will send to the desk en bloc and ask that they be reported and agreed to en bloc; an amendment on behalf of Senator Simpson; an amendment on behalf of Senator Hatfield; an amendment I send to the desk for and on behalf of the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Kempthorne; an amendment I send to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby; an amendment by Senator Domenici which is cosponsored by Senators Helms, Thurmond, Faircloth, and Bingaman.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know that the next amendment is the Kerrey amendment No. 4978. Senator Kerrey has offered this along with two other amendments. Those other amendments were agreed to. I have been authorized to ask that the Kerrey amendment No. 4978 be withdrawn.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the pending amendment now is the Brown amendment, as modified. I know of no objection to the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we adopt the amendment and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind comments. We appreciate his good efforts, as well. Amendment No. 5002, As Modified

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management and Accountability to meet on Wednesday, July 24, at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing on the S. 1434, Biennial Budgeting Act of 1995.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Regulatory Relief of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, to conduct a hearing regarding the condition of consumer credit, the implications of consumer credit trends and the risks they impose on financial institutions.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there have been cleared two additional amendments--one we offered earlier and had withdrawn, and another amendment. I will send one up on behalf of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, dealing with rural utilities assistance program, and the other offered on behalf of the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and others. Amendments Nos. 5000 and 5001, En Bloc

Mr. COCHRAN. Earlier tonight, the Senate adopted two amendments offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey. These were modifications of previous amendments that he had filed and were at the desk. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendments Nos. 4979 and 4980, offered previously by the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.

Mr. COCHRAN. The comments of the Senator from Georgia are appreciated and his points are well received. We will review such language that the Senator provides in conference.