Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is unfortunate, indeed, that we are not getting a vote on the repeal of the gasoline tax that was imposed in 1993, the 4.3-cent gasoline tax that has been debated and discussed here on the floor for these past 2 weeks now. When the Senate came back into session following the recent recess, the majority leader indicated to the Senate that the order of business would be that we would debate and dispose of the so-called taxpayer bill of rights, legislation that has been reported from the Senate Finance Committee, that had been discussed for some time over a period of the last several years; as a matter of fact, a priority of Senators on both sides of the aisle. I can recall when my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, introduced legislation along that line some time ago and invited Senators to cosponsor. I joined in cosponsoring the legislation. There have been enactments of similar legislation in the past but this seemed to address the current problems. It had bipartisan support. To that legislation, the majority leader proposed to add a temporary repeal of the gasoline tax that had been imposed at the President's request, and with the opposition, the active opposition of all Republicans in the Congress. The fact of the matter is, this was a part of the initial deficit reduction package proposed by President Clinton soon after he came into office. It was opposed by Republicans because for the first time there would be Federal taxation of gasoline that would not be earmarked for road and bridge construction under the Highway Trust Fund Act. Gasoline, tires, batteries, and accessories had been taxed in the past, at the initiative of President Eisenhower some time ago, to try to build a national defense highway system. It was thought at the time that the American people would support that, if the highway users could support and pay for it through Federal taxes on gasoline, oil, batteries, and the like, those things that would be purchased by the users of the Nation's highways, those funds would be dedicated for that purpose. Now, President Clinton comes into office as President and, for the first time, suggests that there be a Federal tax on gasoline that would go into the General Treasury, which would not be a part of the highway trust fund. There was strong objection to that. We had a rollcall vote in the Congress, and Republicans unanimously voted against that tax. With gasoline prices rising, with people finding it more and more difficult to operate their trucks and cars with these new, high prices, it was appropriate, in the view of this side of the aisle, that we act to repeal, temporarily, that gasoline tax.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at the request of the Republican leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, May 15, the Senate begin consideration of the budget resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 57.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at the request of the Republican leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Executive Calendar nomination Nos. 543 through 548, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate very much the distinguished Senator yielding to me for a question. My question is, when I heard your discussion of the unanimous-consent request propounded by the Republican leader, there seemed to be--is this correct--the complaint that the minimum wage issue is something that had not been scheduled and, therefore, this was an issue that needed to be scheduled and have a full debate, and we had to have votes. My question is, why were there not debates and why were there not votes when the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate and in the House and in the administration for the 2 years in the previous Congress? We never had an amendment offered by a Democrat, we never had a bill offered by a Democrat, and we never had a unanimous-consent request on the floor propounded by the Democratic leader on that issue. Now, on another unrelated issue, we have to stop now and cannot proceed to take up anything because of the request being made on the Senator's side that there be an immediate debate and a vote on a minimum wage proposal that has never been to committee and never had any hearings in either the last Congress or this Congress. All of a sudden the facts are overwhelming that this is something that has to be done right now. Why is that?

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this bill makes significant reforms of our Nation's longstanding agricultural policy. Farmers will no longer be forced to plant the same crops year after year to receive assistance, allowing for greater crop rotation and flexibility. Farmers will be able to make planting decisions which are in their own economic interest. I am pleased that this farm bill retains the same operating provisions of the successful Marketing Loan Program which were contained in current law. This program has proven to be greatly beneficial for commodities such as cotton and rice. The Marketing Loan Program continues to achieve the objectives of minimizing forfeitures, the accumulation of stocks, and government costs while promoting competitive marketing in domestic and international markets. In order to maintain consistency in the operation of this program, it is the intention of the managers of this conference report that the Secretary of Agriculture extend the provisions of current regulations governing entry into the marketing loan and establishment of the repayment rate. Also, it is the intention that the Secretary of Agriculture continue to establish the prevailing world price for upland cotton in the same manner utilized for the 1991 through 1995 crops. This farm bill preserves and enhances many of our successful environmental and conservation programs. For example, the Conservation Reserve Program is reauthorized and existing participants are eligible to reapply upon expiration of their contracts. The Wetlands Reserve Program is reauthorized with modifications to allow for non-permanent 30-year easements. I am very pleased that a program which I introduced to enhance our Nation's wildlife population was included in the conference agreement. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is a new cost-share program for landowners, which will promote the implementation of essential management practices to improve wildlife habitat. Failure to pass this farm bill conference report would cause a great deal of confusion and economic hardship for many of our Nation's farmers. This outcome will not be acceptable for farmers, consumers or taxpayers. Our farmers are ready to go to work now, but they need to know what the programs are going to be so they can make rational and thoughtful decisions. The Government's role in providing stability and an orderly transition to a market economy in agriculture is very important, and our commitment to this goal can be seen in this farm bill conference report. This farm bill ensures our commitment to protecting and building upon our public and private investments in agriculture and rural America. Mr. President, it is time to act and I urge my colleagues to support passage of the farm bill conference report.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer with my colleague from Arkansas will ensure that funds appropriated to the Food Safety and Inspection Service for fiscal year 1996 are used to cover in-plant inspector salaries and benefits requirements before being obligated for other purposes. The reason for this amendment is simple. The Food Safety and Inspection Service has chosen to purchase computers over paying the salaries of inspectors who ensure the safety of our Nation's meat and poultry supply. Mr. President, this agency requested $594 million for fiscal year 1996, a 13-percent increase over the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. With a total allocation for discretionary spending below a freeze at fiscal year 1995 enacted levels, this subcommittee could not grant the requested increase. We appropriated $544 million to the agency. The President signed the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act on October 21, 1995. Apparently, the Food Safety and Inspection Service did not alter its spending plans for the year to live within the amount appropriated to it. Now, here we are, about half way through the fiscal year, with a request for a supplemental appropriation of $9.5 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which includes $3.2 million for inspector positions, $3.5 million for training for the new hazard analysis and critical control point [or HACCP], inspection program, and $2.8 million for the animal production food safety initiative. This supplemental request from the President is offset in budget authority by a proposed rescission in funds appropriated to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service buildings and facilities account, but not in outlays, as required by congressional budget rules. In investigating why the Agency faces a shortfall, we are told that the Agency decided to commit the $8.4 million it had requested for the Field Automation and Information Management initiative, of which between $4 and $5 million remain. FSIS chose computers over inspectors. When asked if inspector positions would be protected if the Agency ran short of funds at the end of the fiscal year, the answer was ``no.'' Rather than commit this money to an identified shortfall in inspector funding, it has come to us for more money. Mr. President, this amendment will ensure that above all, there are adequate numbers of inspectors in the plants for the remainder of the fiscal year to ensure that the meat people put on their tables is safe and wholesome. At the same time, it will ensure that processing plants do not shut down, thereby increasing the cost of meat in the groceries, and reducing prices that farmers receive for their animals because they can't get them to market. We agree with the Department that the modernization of the current inspection program is essential, and endorsed it in the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture Appropriations Act. Where we disagree is that the current inspection system should suffer at the expense of expediting implementation of the new system or other Agency initiatives. It is essential that we maintain the existing system while efforts are underway to implement the new system. In fact, I believe that the No. 2 priority of the Food Safety and Inspection Service should be training to implement the new HACCP rule. Once the new inspection system is in place, then is the time to dismantle the current system. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment to ensure that adequate funds are available to keep meat and poultry inspectors on the job. amendment no. 3542 On page 769, line 24, delete the word ``Of'' and insert ``Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, of'. On page 770, line 4, after the word ``available'', insert the words ``for operating expenses''.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today will amend the National School Lunch Act to provide greater flexibility to schools to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans under the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. The National School Lunch Program is a program that works. The National School Lunch Program currently operates in over 92,000 schools and serves approximately 26 million children each day. In my State of Mississippi approximately 7 out of 10 children participate in the School Lunch Program. It is very important to have the flexibility to serve the children healthy meals while reducing time consuming paperwork. The Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 contained provisions to improve and simplify the National School Lunch Program. It included a requirement that schools implement the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. We must allow for local and regional food preferences. Further, not every school district has the resources to conduct sophisticated nutrient analysis of each meal or to hire a nutritionist. The legislation that I am introducing today would not delete or postpone in any way the requirement that the School Lunch Program implement the Dietary Guidelines in a timely manner. Rather, my legislation will allow local schools to implement the Dietary Guidelines with greater program flexibility and less expense. This legislation has the strong support of the school food service administrators in Mississippi. I urge Senators to support it.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today will amend the National School Lunch Act to provide greater flexibility to schools to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans under the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. The National School Lunch Program is a program that works. The National School Lunch Program currently operates in over 92,000 schools and serves approximately 26 million children each day. In my State of Mississippi approximately 7 out of 10 children participate in the School Lunch Program. It is very important to have the flexibility to serve the children healthy meals while reducing time consuming paperwork. The Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 contained provisions to improve and simplify the National School Lunch Program. It included a requirement that schools implement the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. We must allow for local and regional food preferences. Further, not every school district has the resources to conduct sophisticated nutrient analysis of each meal or to hire a nutritionist. The legislation that I am introducing today would not delete or postpone in any way the requirement that the School Lunch Program implement the Dietary Guidelines in a timely manner. Rather, my legislation will allow local schools to implement the Dietary Guidelines with greater program flexibility and less expense. This legislation has the strong support of the school food service administrators in Mississippi. I urge Senators to support it.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, my colleague raises a valid and important point. Farmers are in fact, facing uncertainty and a potentially serious situation concerning purchase of crop insurance for 1996. Many believe they are not going to be required to buy it; others may believe that they are already covered when, in fact, they aren't because the automatic extension of their 1995 policy won't cover all the crops they may plant in 1996. For example, a farmer who planted cotton last year and corn this year is not covered under an extension of his old policy. And, because the closing date has or soon will pass, he will not be able to purchase insurance. I am pleased to report to the Senate that the conferees on the farm bill are aware of this issue. I hope my colleagues will work to see that this is addressed as part of the conference agreement on that bill by temporarily extending the purchase date for those producers who want to purchase insurance. We should not send a mixed message by allowing broad cropping flexibility, while remaining totally inflexible about insurance purchase dates for the 1996 crops. I appreciate the designated Democratic leader for raising this important issue. I agree this is a problem and should be corrected. amendment no. 3513

Mr. COCHRAN. The Natchez Trace Parkway is nearing the end of construction on 445 miles of historic roadway through Mississippi and Tennessee. The parkway has been under construction since 1937 and only the final 20 miles remain to be completed along with an Intermodal Visitor's Center at the terminus in Natchez, MS, a cost-share project that combines Federal, State, and local funds. The fiscal year 1996 Interior section of the Omnibus consolidated rescissions and appropriations bill contains $3,000,000 for construction of the Natchez Trace Parkway. This $3,000,000 is insufficient to complete construction of any of the remaining miles on the parkway and the National Park Service has indicated that the appropriated funds can be used for the cost-share visitor center project to be located at the terminus of the parkway. This transfer of funds will be a single appropriation to the National Park Service to be used for the construction of the visitors center. I have worked on this project with my friend and colleague, Senator Gorton, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, and Senator Byrd, my friend from West Virginia and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and ask them if they are in agreement that it would be acceptable for the $3,000,000 provided for construction on the Natchez Trace Parkway in fiscal year 1996 to be used for the project at the parkway's terminus?

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator does not want to push for a vote at this time on his amendment. I assume he expects to get consent to set the vote on the amendment aside until we dispose of the Gramm amendment and maybe other amendments tonight; is that correct?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think this issue has been fully discussed on the floor tonight. I know Senator Hatfield, when he was here a moment ago discussing the issue, laid out all the reasons why this amendment is not a good idea. In 1990, there was a long, drawn-out negotiation over procedures in the budget and how appropriations would be made in case of national emergencies and whether or not they were under the same requirements for offsets as routine operating expenses were. It was decided by the Congress in 1990, in concert with the administration, a Republican administration, that these would be the rules. This amendment is an effort to legislate a rules change on an appropriations bill. We think it an amendment that ought to be rejected by the Senate. Therefore, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of the time on this side of the amendment and hope others will yield back their time, and I then will move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. With that understanding, I yield back all the time on this side on the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I concur with my friend from Oregon, the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that this would be an appropriate use of this authority.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator's inquiry. This bill includes $107,514,000 for watershed and flood prevention operations and $30,000,000 for the Emergency Conservation Program. USDA has determined that these amounts should be sufficient to cover the damage sustained in the Northwest and other areas which have experienced natural disasters.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is an error on page 213 of Senate Report 104-236, which accompanies S. 1594, that I would like to correct. Chapter 1 of title II of the bill pertains to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is under the jurisdiction of the appropriations subcommittee which I chair. In this chapter, the committee notes that for fiscal year 1996, the Food Safety and Inspection Service received a 5.5-percent increase over the amount appropriated to it for fiscal year 1995. However, this percentage does not include the supplemental appropriation which the agency received for fiscal year 1995, and should instead be 3.6 percent.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in opposition to the amendment, let me simply state that there are controls and reforms not only reflected in this legislation before the Senate in the Market Promotion Program, but there are also restrictions imposed by the Department of Agriculture in the allocation of these funds. In the view of many of us, that should answer all of the charges that have been made by some of the sensationalized attacks on our effort to enlarge our share of the international market through helping our exporters of food and commodities do a better job competing with those countries that engage in unfair practices to keep our products out of markets and to make us lose market share. This provision in the bill that is sought to be amended creates American jobs. It is time for us to stand up for our farmers and our exporters. I urge the Senate to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a subject we have debated on a number of different occasions on the floor of the Senate. I recall when we had the agriculture appropriations bill before the Senate this past year there were amendments offered to change various parts of the legal authorization for the program, the statutory authorization. We resisted those amendments on the appropriations bill and tried to keep the focus on the amount of money that was being appropriated for the program. As I understand the history of this amendment, when it was brought up on the appropriations bill, the Senate passed it, or a version of it. I am advised by members of my staff that on that occasion when we went to conference the House conferees did not agree to accept the language and the provision was dropped. It did not make it through the process to be included in the appropriations bill as finally adopted and submitted to the President for his signature. So that is why this issue is raised again. Let me just point out, while this is a controversial program, and some of the television networks have sort of made a hobby at least, if not a profession, of attacking it and exaggerating it and trying to sensationalize it as something that is evil and not workable, the facts are that this is a program which has created American jobs because it has expanded our level of exports in agriculture commodity trade and in food product trade to the extent that it has been reauthorized. It has been supported by this Senate and the House as well time after time because of the evidence. The evidence is that this program works. It was originally designed to be targeted against unfair trade practices by our competitors around the world. It was called the targeted export assistance program. The fact is it continues to work in that way because funds are allocated by the Department of Agriculture where there are special problems or special opportunities and only this kind of assistance is considered to be effective. So I urge Senators to look at this amendment very carefully. I am not going to get all out of breath, or red in the face, arguing against it again. But I am going to say we should vote against this. It unnecessarily restricts--unnecessarily restricts--the Department of Agriculture, in the administration of the program. The Department of Agriculture has submitted testimony time and time again about how this has been a very useful program. I hope the Senate will not be stampeded by the clever arguments that are being made by my good friends who continue to take this issue up and make a semicareer out of attacking the Market Promotion Program. It is a good program, and I am going to vote against the amendment. I hope Senators will join me in doing so. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 6, 1996, for purposes of conducting a Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony to review trends in Federal land ownership by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service.