Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc: The first is offered for the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], dealing with electronic warehouse receipts. The second is offered for the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], dealing with research facilities in Oklahoma of the Agriculture Research Service.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator. I know he is committed on this issue. He raises it from time to time. I do appreciate the fact we do not have all the charts and other things that he has brought to the floor in the past to persuade Senators on the correctness of his position, but he is certainly correct in pointing out that this issue was debated fully, extensively in the discussion of the farm bill earlier this year. The farm bill did have provisions relating to the program, and so Senators are familiar with it, and they are familiar with the arguments for and against. I am not going to belabor the issue again. I hope Senators will reject the amendment and support the committee's funding level for this program. It is, I would say, consistent with the authorization contained in the conference report of the farm bill. I rest my case, and I am happy for the Senate to work its will on this subject. I hope they will support the decision that we made in the committee. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are a few amendments which I am going to send to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc and approved en bloc. All have been cleared. The first is an amendment making technical corrections to the bill by Senator Cochran. The second is an amendment by Senator Stevens dealing with appropriated funds for rural water and waste systems, the third is an amendment for Senator Murkowski concerning seafood inspection requirements, and the fourth is an amendment by Senator Jeffords dealing with the FSIS/APHIS accounts or the National Farm Animal Identification Pilot Program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. COCHRAN. I would say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I agree with his comments regarding the ARS/IFS funds provided for the Wisconsin-Madison Experiment Station.

Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the questions of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and I am happy to provide further clarification. The Senator is correct in his description of the committee's intent in its report accompanying the bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the committee agrees that this is the sort of cooperative, incentive-based relationship that should be fostered in order to protect natural resources, as is the goal of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. yellowstar thistle control

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise to simply advise the Senate that the Senator from Massachusetts came over a while ago to ask if he could have 10 minutes as if in morning business to talk about a subject that he discussed in the Senate earlier, and hadn't been able to complete his remarks. I suggested that he come over around 4:30, thinking that there might be a lull in the action so that he could proceed with morning business remarks. But I know the Senator from North Dakota is here to talk about the issue before the Senate. I hope we can resolve it so that the Senator from Massachusetts can have a few minutes following the Senator from North Dakota, or preceding the Senator, whatever is their pleasure. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me compliment those who participated in this debate for the efforts they made to fully acquaint the Senate with the issue that is before us with the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. My reaction to it at this point is that this is an issue that has been before the Senate, was before the Senate, was fully debated when we were undertaking to write the new farm bill, which contained a lot of market transition reforms, included reforms in the Sugar Program and many others, and this issue has been resolved, or at least a bill was passed by the House and Senate, a conference occurred, a conference report was written. This is the conference report that was compiled by conferees on the part of the House and the Senate, almost 500 pages in length, devoted to farm programs and the role of the Federal Government and the private sector in trying to make available to Americans abundant supplies of reasonably priced foods and commodities. The President signed the bill, and this is the law. The bill before the Senate today simply funds the activities of the Department of Agriculture and related agencies. It doesn't seek to address suggested changes in agriculture or farm policy, as such, but simply to undertake to allocate to this Department the funds it needs to carry out its responsibilities as defined by the law. So this is a proposal by the Senator from New Hampshire to change the law and, therefore, it seems to me ought not to be adopted by the Senate. It is very technical, obviously. I was reading section 156 in the conference report that deals with the Sugar Program, and it talks about the nonrecourse and the recourse loans that are a part of that program, and it is very, very technical. I was thinking, how is a Senator who is not a member of the Agriculture Committee, has not been a party to the hearings and discussions about how this is going to work as a practical matter, how is he going to be able to decide, how is she going to be able to decide whether this is an amendment they want to vote for or against. These are arguments that have been made on both sides of the issues. I compliment the Senators involved. I think the only thing we can be sure of is we will vote on this. We will vote on this amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the vote will occur in due course of proceeding on this bill. It will not occur today. But under the order entered for the consideration of the bill today, it would be put over and a vote will occur tomorrow. I am going to have to come down on the side of the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from North Dakota in arguing that the amendment be voted down. I hope Senators will vote against the amendment, with due respect to my very good friend from New Hampshire, whom I admire greatly. Mr. President, we are prepared to receive other amendments, or any further debate on this amendment would be in order if Senators care to debate the amendment. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would reduce the total recommended for special research grants under research and education activities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service by $50,000 and increase the amount recommended for Federal administration under extension activities of the service by the same amount. The amendment would affect only funds recommended for research and extension work in Mississippi. It would create a new grant under Federal administration for an extension specialist in Mississippi of $50,000 to cover an unfunded requirement which was just brought to my attention. To offset this additional funding, the amount recommended for aquaculture research in Mississippi would be reduced from the $642,000 to $592,000, eliminating the additional funds recommended to enable the National Center for Physical Acoustics to provide additional support to the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center. Mr. President, we have shown this amendment to the other side, and we understand there is no objection.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Maybe we will let him know he should come and offer that amendment if it is convenient at this time for him. We are actually waiting on some language before we could offer that. The Senator could go ahead and proceed to offer his amendment, if he would like. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Senator Pressler was going to offer that. We could offer it for him, but if he wants to be here and offer that amendment, we will give him an opportunity to do so.

Mr. COCHRAN. I certainly agree with the Senator. We want to complete action on all the amendments. The majority leader wanted to have votes on whatever amendments have to be voted on tomorrow and final passage tomorrow. To do that we are going to have to move along because I have seen a list of amendments that we have heard may be offered, and there are some 20 on that list. So in order to expedite the handling of those amendments, I agree with the Senator that we should move along. We would like for Senators to come now to the floor and start offering these amendments so we could dispose of them.

Mr. COCHRAN. The committee amendments to be adopted.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator has all of his rights. There are no rights of his whatsoever that have been extinguished in any way or diminished in any way.

Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to that. I have heard there may be an objection on the other side of the aisle. There is no objection on this side.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I can say that we have gotten notice--and maybe the Senator from Arkansas has heard of this--from one Senator on this side of the aisle who asked that no unanimous-consent agreement be made on any amendment relating to the issue of sugar. Having heard that--I do not know whether the Senator has heard that or not--I do not know of any objection to any agreements on this side of the aisle on that subject. We have not heard of any. My thought would be if the Senator has an amendment to simply go ahead and offer it and let us see what happens. If Senators want to debate it, they can come and debate it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know that some Senators are considering amendments. One Senator has just come to the floor--Senator Gregg of New Hampshire--who wanted to give the Senate notice that he intended to offer an amendment on a subject. Maybe, if he can tell us when he wants to do that, we can reach some agreement as to the time. I know there are a couple of other Senators who have asked that they be permitted to offer amendments early in the consideration of the bill. Senator McCain is one, and there may be others. So we are ready to accept the suggestions of Senators for changes in the bill. I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Hampshire if he would like to respond to my inquiry.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his kind remarks and again repeat my expression of appreciation for his hard work and his good assistance in the preparation of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments which are at the desk to H.R. 3603 be considered and agreed to en bloc; that no points of order be waived thereon; that the measure, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate today the bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies for the fiscal year 1997. This bill provides funding for all of the activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, except for the U.S. Forest Service. It also funds the activities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and pays for expenses and payments of the Farm Credit System. This bill recommends total new budget authority of $54.3 billion. This is $9 billion less than the 1996 enacted level for these programs and these activities. It is $4 billion less than the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request. It is $1.2 billion more than the level recommended by the House. Over 76 percent of the total to be spent under this bill will go for funding of the Nation's domestic food assistance programs. That represents $40.5 billion of this $54.3 billion bill. This is up from 63 percent of the total funding in the bill in 1996. These programs include food stamps, the national school lunch and elderly feeding programs, and the supplemental feeding program for women, infants and children. The bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.118 billion in budget authority and $13.409 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1997. These amounts are consistent with the allocation the subcommittee has received under the Budget Act. Senators should also be aware these allocations are approximately $510 million in budget authority and $440 million in outlays less than what would be required under a freeze. The suggestion this year, for those who are following the budget debate, was that spending under the discretionary programs of the Federal Government ought to be held level with last year's spending. That was the goal, that was the objective. This bill meets that target and then some. There is actually a reduction in spending from the freeze level in this bill as compared with last year's or the current fiscal year's budget and appropriations levels. We do have some parts of this bill where spending is increased. Among the discretionary spending increases recommended are an additional $12.8 million to continue the efforts of the Food Safety and Inspection Service to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply. The level recommended for the Food Safety and Inspection Service is adequate to maintain the current inspection system and to provide the needed investments required to implement the new hazard analysis and critical control point meat and poultry inspection system. We are hopeful that by bringing this new system online we can take advantage of new technologies, new scientific advances, in the detection of those contaminants in the food supply that we would not be able to detect otherwise, and we will help ensure that we are doing everything that possibly can be done to safeguard the food supply and the consumers of food in America from harm and ill health. In order to implement the system, the bill provides funding to fill all inspector vacancies, funding to train inspectors in the new inspection system, and funding for the annualization of fiscal year 1996 pay raises and anticipated 1997 pay raises. This demonstrates the high priority this committee places on the safety of our Nation's meat and poultry and our commitment to ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food in the world. Another area of emphasis in this bill is agriculture research. The bill provides $1.1 billion for funding of agriculture research. This is approximately $7.3 million below the level requested by the administration, but it is $25 million above the House-recommended level. Included in this amount is $52 million for food safety research. The committee has provided the full increase of $7.5 million requested for food safety research. For extension activities, the bill recommends $431 million, which is $3.3 million above the fiscal year 1996 level. The Smith-Lever and Hatch Act formula funding are continued at 1996 levels. The increase recommended for extension activities will provide first-time funding for institutional capacity grants and extension work at the 29 tribally controlled colleges, or 1994 Institutions. Farm credit programs are funded by the bill, which provides $3.1 billion in loan levels for the coming fiscal year. This is an increase of $65 million over the House-recommended level. The bill also recognizes that efficiencies can be gained through the consolidation of programs to improve their efficiency in terms of administrative costs and paperwork and the like. So the bill consolidates funding for 14 rural development grant and loan programs into a rural community investment program. It is divided into three subprograms: housing, business cooperative assistance, and rural utilities assistance. The 1996 appropriations act created the first of these consolidations for rural utilities. The funding levels provided for all three of the programs were equal to the comparable levels requested in the budget. On an aggregate basis, the funding levels in the bill represent an increase of $231 million more than the House-passed bill. The bill funds, as I mentioned before, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. We are trying to provide levels of funding that will enable these two agencies to do the job they are required to do by law and that will enable them to discharge their responsibilities under the law. The bill also carries a provision to ensure the continuation of WIC Program funding and Food Stamp Act funding, as well. The bill includes a provision to amend the Food Stamp Act, to exclude electronic benefit transfer systems for the delivery of food stamp benefits from the Federal Reserve Board's ``Regulation E.'' There are other provisions of the bill that seek to deal with challenges in the food service area, and we hope Senators will find that we have demonstrated a sensitivity to the needs of those who cannot adequately provide for their own nutrition needs and need Government help to do it. But we also reflect in this bill changes and reforms that have been made by law to try to ensure that there is a sense of personal responsibility for one to take care of himself and his family, and that also is reflected in this legislation. Senators may remember that, last year, when this bill was on the floor, there was a big debate over a regulation being proposed by the administration--the Food Safety and Inspection Service, specifically-- dealing with when poultry products could be labeled as ``fresh'' or ``frozen.'' Well, I am happy to report to the Senate that a compromise has been reached among those who were directly interested in the debate last year, so that the definition of the term ``fresh,'' as used in labeling of raw poultry products, is reflected and included in this legislation. We hope that resolves the issue. Of course, the administration still has differences of opinion about it, and those may be heard at some point in the debate. We think this is a responsible way of resolving that issue. There are other provisions related to legislative changes the House recommended that we deleted. The House rewrote some provisions that were included in the farm bill, and we did not go along with those House provisions. So Senators will notice that we do not provide a cap on the price of raw sugarcane, for example. We do not approve a provision relating to planting requirements under the farm bill that would be required to meet eligibility standards for a market transition payment. We revised that to make it consistent with the language of the law, the farm bill that was passed by both Houses and signed by the President. So we do not try to go in and rewrite the farm bill in this bill. We urge Senators not to try to do that with amendments. Only 24 percent of the total funding recommended by this bill is discretionary. These have been difficult challenges for the committee to resolve, trying to determine how to allocate scarce funds that are made available to this subcommittee under the budget resolution. We hope Senators will agree that we have undertaken this and presented a bill that is done in a fair way, so that those essential activities in the Department of Agriculture that are authorized and required by law are funded. But we have tried to be responsible, and we hope Senators agree that we have. These are recommendations that we make to the Senate, which we hope will be approved. Let me say that this bill could not have been written without the excellent cooperation and dedicated and intelligent assistance of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. He has served as chairman of this subcommittee in the past, and it has been a pleasure to work with him and the members of his staff in the development of this bill. We had hearings all through the earlier parts of this year. We heard from all of the agencies and departments, whose budgets were reviewed by our subcommittee very carefully. We have considered the suggestions of others outside of the Congress, who have opinions to be expressed on these subjects. So we have tried to consider all of the relevant evidence and facts that ought to be considered before presenting this bill to the Senate. We hope the Senate will approve it, and we recommend that it be adopted. We know that Senators may have amendments. If they do have amendments, we will be glad to debate them. Let me repeat the suggestion of the majority leader when he was asking consent to go to this bill today. We hope to complete action on this bill today. That means that all amendments that are going to be offered should be offered today and debated today. We will reserve any votes on those amendments, and any vote on final passage, until tomorrow. We appreciate the cooperation of Senators that will enable us to accomplish that goal. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.