Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment helps farmers and markets adjust to the changes in Federal dairy policy in this bill. It does so by creating an export class for dairy products and establishing a farmer-financed mechanism to boost exports. It saves money and provides for research to make our products more competitive. It will also grant the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which is supported by all the Governors and legislatures in New England. I urge Senators to support the amendment.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Moynihan and Simpson in introducing joint resolutions providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr., Anne d'Harnoncourt, and Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., as Citizen Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. Howard Baker is a distinguished public servant well known in this body. He was a Senator from Tennessee from 1967 to 1985, serving as Minority Leader from 1977 to 1981 and as Majority Leader from 1981 to 1985. He was Chief of Staff to President Reagan in 1987 and 1988 before returning to the private practice of law. He has received the Nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as well as the Jefferson Award for Greatest Public Service Performed by an Elected or Appointed Official. Anne d'Harnoncourt is currently the George D. Widener Director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, having previously served that museum as Curator of Twentieth Century Art and as Assistant Curator of Twentieth Century Art at the Art Institute of Chicago. A Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, she is a member of numerous advisory committees and boards, including the Board of Directors of The Henry Luce Foundation and the Board of Overseers of the [[Page S 15580]] Graduate School of Fine Arts of the University of Pennsylvania. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of International Business Machines Corp. He previously served as chairman and chief executive officer of RJR Nabisco and as president of American Express Company. He is a director of The New York Times Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, the Japan Society, and Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. A lifetime advocate of the importance of quality education, he has redirected a majority of IBM's substantial philanthropic resources in the United States to the support of public school reform. I urge Senators to support the resolutions of appointment of these outstanding Americans.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Moynihan and Simpson in introducing joint resolutions providing for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr., Anne d'Harnoncourt, and Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., as Citizen Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. Howard Baker is a distinguished public servant well known in this body. He was a Senator from Tennessee from 1967 to 1985, serving as Minority Leader from 1977 to 1981 and as Majority Leader from 1981 to 1985. He was Chief of Staff to President Reagan in 1987 and 1988 before returning to the private practice of law. He has received the Nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as well as the Jefferson Award for Greatest Public Service Performed by an Elected or Appointed Official. Anne d'Harnoncourt is currently the George D. Widener Director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, having previously served that museum as Curator of Twentieth Century Art and as Assistant Curator of Twentieth Century Art at the Art Institute of Chicago. A Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, she is a member of numerous advisory committees and boards, including the Board of Directors of The Henry Luce Foundation and the Board of Overseers of the [[Page S 15580]] Graduate School of Fine Arts of the University of Pennsylvania. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of International Business Machines Corp. He previously served as chairman and chief executive officer of RJR Nabisco and as president of American Express Company. He is a director of The New York Times Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, the Japan Society, and Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. A lifetime advocate of the importance of quality education, he has redirected a majority of IBM's substantial philanthropic resources in the United States to the support of public school reform. I urge Senators to support the resolutions of appointment of these outstanding Americans.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object to the further consideration of the bill at this time.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today the leader time has been reserved, and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 2 p.m., this afternoon. At 2 p.m., the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1322 regarding the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel. The majority leader has previously announced that there will be no rollcall votes prior to 5 p.m., today.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] is here to speak under the order reserved in my name. I yield the floor so he can be recognized at this time.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that other Republican Senators would like to be heard this morning on the subject of the balanced budget process and our effort to get a reconciliation bill before the Senate this week for action and the general policy that we have embarked upon to try to do a better job of controlling the Federal deficit. As part of this effort, of course, we have been trying to reduce the levels of funding in individual appropriations bills. We passed a budget resolution earlier this year. The conference report was agreed to by both Houses of Congress setting specific targets for spending, many of which are below last year's levels of funding for the operations of the Federal Government. Let me give you one example of the success that we have achieved to date. And I am confident that more success will be achieved as we go through the balance of this legislative session. The President signed a bill on Saturday appropriating funds for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies. This is the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill that had previously been [[Page S 15416]] passed by the Congress. This bill represents, first of all, successful negotiation with the administration over what had been some very contentious issues. We were able to work with our colleagues in the House and here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, to work out an agreed-upon bill which was passed here in the Senate, Senators may recall, with only three dissenting votes. This bill provides funding at a level over $5 billion less than the level of funding that was made available for this Department and these agencies for the fiscal year that ended on September 30. That shows remarkable restraint because many of the programs funded in that bill are mandatory programs, the programs that we will have to deal with when we take up the reconciliation bill later this week. My recollection is that funding level for the bill was about $63 billion. And of that amount, some $50 billion was required to be funded by law: entitlement programs, reimbursements to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses, food stamp benefits that are made available to those who are entitled under the definition of the law of statutes to certain levels of food assistance. The qualifications for those benefits are set out in other laws, not the appropriations bill. And so I am using this as an illustration to describe why it is so important if we are to continue to achieve reductions in spending in later years for us to take up and pass the budget reconciliation bill which does make changes in the eligibility for Government resources and funds under the definition of statutory law. The amount of funds provided in the Agriculture appropriations bill for the discretionary funding programs amounted to only about $13 billion of the total $63 billion included in that bill. So even if we did not appropriate any money for the discretionary programs funded in that bill, next year or the next there would still be required to be spent by the Government way more than half, more than two-thirds of the total funds appropriated in that bill. That is true not only of that appropriations bill, but many others like it. I am very glad the President signed the bill and that we were able to successfully negotiate our way through the process so that we could get a bill passed by this Congress that could be signed by the President and that does carry out the directive of the congressional budget resolution to cut spending, to try to do with less, to try to make do with less money than we have in the past for many of these programs. But we were restricted and restrained because of the provisions of law in most of the accounts that are funded in that bill. So, to take care of that problem, to address that need, to deal with the realities facing this Congress on how we approach the challenge of reductions in spending to achieve a balanced budget, we have to make changes in the law which qualify individuals and other entities for Federal dollars every year. The reconciliation bill carries out that important requirement by assembling a package of changes from every legislative committee in the Congress, which will, if passed and signed by the President, reduce the costs of Federal programs over the next 7 years to the extent that by the year 2002 we not only will have a balanced budget, but we will have a surplus in the annual operating budget of the Federal Government. That is the plan. That is the purpose of the passage of the reconciliation bill, and also the adoption of the individual appropriations bills as we are taking them up now in a process, as a part of a plan, that will meet the challenge of developing a new policy of fiscal responsibility at the Federal level. This is the change, I am convinced, Mr. President, that the American people voted for in the last election. It is the change that President Clinton ran on when he was elected President, but he did not do anything after he was elected President to force the changes that we are now requiring under the budget reconciliation and budget process that has been adopted by the Republican Congress. So we are trying to deliver on the promise President Clinton made when he ran and also deliver on the promises that were made by those who were candidates for Congress in the House and the Senate in the last election, and we are making progress. That is the point. This Agriculture appropriations conference report that we adopted and the bill that was signed on Saturday by President Clinton shows that we can deliver on the promise to cut spending, to be more responsible, to make tough choices. We would like to be able to appropriate more money for the funding of programs under the jurisdiction of that committee, but we were confronted with the reality of a $200 billion operating deficit in the last fiscal year and a budget that recommended the same thing for next year, and that was intolerable. The Congress decided, when it adopted the resolution on the budget, that it was intolerable, and so we changed that policy and determined that we would bring the deficit down. We started doing it, and I am proud of the Congress for taking up the challenge and delivering on the promises. I hope we can continue to carry through with this kind of momentum until we achieve the success that the American people deserve and want and achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. Mr. President, I know there are a number of Senators on our side who indicated an interest in speaking on this and related subjects. I am happy to yield the floor so that Senators can be recognized under the previous order. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his excellent statement and the other Senators who have spoken on our side of the aisle tonight on the subject of the balanced budget process, the reconciliation bill which will be coming before the Senate next week, and the effort that has been made to put together a plan to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. This is a plan that is workable. It is defensible in every respect. It shows a new awareness and sense of responsibility for managing the fiscal policy of [[Page S 15335]] this country in a more commonsense fashion, getting us to a point where on an annual basis we can operate the Federal Government within a budget that is in balance; that we do not overspend; that our projections are sound and based on reality and facts, not fiction. So I think the statements that have been made this evening are very persuasive as we approach this point when we will be taking up the reconciliation bill. We have already considered a number of appropriations bills that have reduced spending from last year's levels in accordance with the directions of the budget resolution. So we are well on our way to achieving success in this very ambitious undertaking and very important undertaking. I thank the Senators who have participated in this special order and am convinced that the American people are going to support our efforts, not just because of the speeches made here but because we are doing the right thing.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask, at the request of the Republican leader, unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business during which Senators may speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was just looking at a letter that was given to me by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Honorable Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], advising that the Congressional Budget Office has had an opportunity to review the budget reconciliation package that has been assembled and will be presented to the Senate, we assume during next week. The good news is that the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the bill as assembled at this point, assuming that the tax bill being reported in the Finance Committee is within the budget reconciliation targets, not only will achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002 but will actually result in a small surplus. The letter from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office goes into more detail with the analysis that she and her staff have made of this reconciliation package. But I hope that between now and next week, when the Senate will have an opportunity to take up and debate the reconciliation bill, Senators will review these documents and the analysis that has been done, because this is the centerpiece of the effort to achieve the balanced budget by the target that was set in the budget resolution that has passed both Houses and is reflected in the conference report that earlier passed the Congress. This is the centerpiece, this is the heart and soul of the effort to achieve a balanced budget. And we are about to embark upon a very historic debate for the first time in anybody's memory on a plan to actually achieve an annual operating budget that is in balance, that changes entitlement programs as well as the appropriated bills that have passed the Congress which is about to take place. I hope that we will have an opportunity as we approach that period to talk about some of the changes that we foresee and the resulting influence that it is going to have for good on the fiscal policies of the country, as well as the effect on interest rates, the effect on the general overall economic environment for job creation and business activity, which will be positive and continue to move us in the right direction in terms of economic growth and economic well-being as a nation. But I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for his good work and his strong leadership in bringing us to this point. We look forward to the debate on the resolution. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. (At the request of Mr. Ford, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that the time under our special order has expired. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his remarks and also those other Senators who have spoken so eloquently and convincingly this afternoon on the subject of the importance of our reconciliation process, balancing the budget, and ushering in a new era of fiscal responsibility. That is what we are determined to achieve, and with the support of Senators we will achieve that and make this a truly new day for America. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. It has gone to the President. We are happy that the Senate acted favorably on the report. So did the House. And that bill is now on its way to the President. We hope he will sign it. All indications are that he will. The Secretary of Agriculture indicated that was his strong recommendation. Others in the administration have likewise indicated they think the President will sign the bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, the Transportation appropriations conference is one that has been the subject of some hard work. Our chairman of the full committee, Senator Hatfield, is chairman of that subcommittee here, and we are hopeful that that bill will come to the floor in the form of a conference report soon. Energy and water is another where we are hopeful that differences can be resolved between the House and Senate at an early date and we can get that conference report before the body.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Arkansas raising this question. I would say to my friend that this is my understanding of the effect of the conference committee's action as well. As you may recall, the regulation as promulgated did not reflect the Department's findings in scientific research. It included a misleading label for those products not qualifying to be labeled ``fresh'' or ``frozen.'' I would also remind my colleague that the Department's final regulation did not include any temperature variance for products. Therefore, the language of this act makes it clear that the rule as published on August 25 shall never go into effect unless the conditions of this statutory language is met. The burden is now upon USDA to submit a regulation to the appropriate committees for approval which resolves these critical issues in a satisfactory manner. I thank my colleague for his inquiry.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for the kind and generous remarks of my good friend and colleague from Arkansas. His support, assistance, and leadership in developing this bill and help in managing it on the floor of the Senate were greatly appreciated and very important to the final work product that was turned out by the Senate. I hope that Senators will support the conference report, as recommended by both managers and both sides of the aisle. When this bill passed the Senate, it passed on a record vote, with only three dissenting votes. I think that is a strong statement of support that existed for the passage of our bill, and I am glad to say that much of the compromise that was necessary reflected many of the recommendations the Senate made during the conference. But it was a give and take and a very fair conference in every sense of the word. I would like to make one further clarification with respect to the conference agreement on this bill. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report inadvertently fails to explain the conference committee's agreement regarding Agricultural Research Service laboratories proposed for closure in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget. The conference agreement provides funding to maintain the El Reno, OK; Sidney, MT; Clemson, SC, and Miami, FL, ARS laboratories. The other locations not transferred to non-Federal ownership, as proposed by both the House and Senate, are to be maintained as ARS worksites. The Houma facility is to be used as a work site of the ARS Center in New Orleans, LA.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1976, the agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to the Senate that we successfully concluded the conference with the House on September 28 on the Agriculture appropriations bill. We worked out our differences. The other body has adopted the conference agreement, and it is now before the Senate. I urge the Senate to adopt it. This bill appropriates funds for the Department of Agriculture, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies for the fiscal year that began October 1. The funding level in the bill is $63.2 billion. This represents a reduction in spending of $5.8 billion from last year's level. It is less than the President's requested level of funding for these programs for the next year. It is actually a smaller amount than we agreed to when this bill was before the Senate. It is $631 million less than the total appropriated by the Senate-passed bill, but it is $615 million more than the level recommended in the House bill. I am pleased to report that the discretionary spending level is $13.3 billion in budget authority and $13.6 billion in outlays and that these amounts are within the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations. There are things that can be said about the fact that we do not have enough funds to provide levels of support that we would like for many areas under the jurisdiction of this committee, but this is a time of constraint, it is a time when we are trying to reduce the overall costs of Government, insist upon new efficiencies in the operation of Government agencies, and this bill is, therefore, consistent with our overall budgetary goals and policy goals. The committee of conference on this bill considered 160 amendments in disagreement between the two Houses. It was our desire to complete conference on this bill before the start of the new fiscal year and we did that. I would like to thank all members of the conference committee for their support and cooperation in this effort. I believe this conference report reflects a mutually satisfactory resolution of the differences between the two Houses, and does so in a manner which reflects the funding requirements of the many programs and activities covered by the bill within the limited resources available. Approximately $39.8 billion, close to 63 percent of the total new budget authority provided by this bill, is for domestic food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Excluding the Food Stamp Program reserve, this represents an increase of $1.5 billion above the fiscal year 1995 level for these programs, which include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; and the school lunch and breakfast programs. The $260 million increase above fiscal year 1995 for the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] Program, as recommended in both the House and Senate bills, remains the single largest discretionary program funding increase provided by this bill. The conference agreement accepts the House bill proposal to consolidate funding for commodity food assistance programs and provides $166 million for this purpose. It also provides the House recommended level of $65 million, $32 million above the fiscal year 1995 level, for the Food Donations Program on Indian reservations; and maintains the fiscal year 1995 level of $150 million, as proposed by the House, for the Elderly Feeding Program. The House bill recommended no fiscal year 1996 funding for a Food Stamp Program reserve. The Senate bill provided $1 billion for this purpose. The conferees have resolved this difference by agreeing to provide a $500 million Food Stamp Program reserve. Although this reserve has not been required for a period of years, this amount will assure that sufficient funds are available to cover benefits in the event of an economic downturn or unforeseen event resulting in increased program participation levels. With respect to rural development programs, the Senate-passed bill consolidated funding for seven rural development loan and grant programs, while the House bill consolidated funding for three programs--water and waste disposal grants and loans and solid waste management grants. The conferees have adopted the House bill position and have provided a total of $487.9 million for this consolidated account. The conferees also have provided $2.9 billion in total rural housing loan authorizations, $415 million more than the House and $42 million less than the Senate bill levels. I am also pleased to report that the Senate bill's higher levels for farm operating and ownership loans were retained by the conferees. Loan authorizations totaling $2.45 billion are provided for these important farmer assistance programs. For discretionary conservation programs, the conferees have provided total funding of $857.7 million. The conference agreement also retains the Senate recommendation providing for the enrollment of an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, the same as the fiscal year 1995 level. In addition, this conference agreement provides $53.6 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It retains a number of Senate bill provisions, including the provision regarding poultry labeling regulations issued by the USDA, a provision which limits eligibility for the market promotion program, and a provision prohibiting the use of FDA funds for the Board of Tea Exports. [[Page S 15098]] Mr. President, I realize that sacrifices are required of everyone if we are to reduce the Federal budget deficit. However, I regret that the resources required to be allocated in this bill to maintain essential food assistance benefits continues to reduce the remaining portion of the bill allocated to those programs so essential to agriculture and to rural America. These are beneficial programs. They help America's farmers to be competitive both here and abroad; they provide essential services to people in rural towns and communities across this Nation; they work to conserve and protect our Nation's natural resources. Mr. President, Senate approval of this conference agreement is the remaining step required to send this appropriations bill to the President for signature into law. I am proud of the work that the committee has done, both in developing the bill to present to the Senate and in conference. I hope the Senate will approve it. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, this morning, there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 11:30 a.m. At that time, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 143, the Workforce Development Act. Approximately 3 hours and 45 minutes remain for debate on the bill, with several amendments remaining in order to the bill under the unanimous-consent agreement. Rollcall votes can, therefore, be expected throughout the day. The majority leader has indicated that the Senate is expected to complete action on S. 143 today and it is, therefore, possible that the Senate may begin consideration of the State Department reorganization bill, S. 908, during today's session. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, This amendment provides funding for the Agricultural Weather Service Centers at Stoneville, MI and Auburn, AL and requires the National Weather Service to continue the operation of these important weather centers. This bill calls for the privatization of elements of the National Weather Service [NWS], including services for agriculture and forestry. These weather service centers provide several important services to America's farmers. Millions of dollars and hundreds of family farms are at risk without proper weather information. Many important products and services would be terminated if these centers are closed. Special freeze forecasts, special advisories for extreme weather events, and agricultural weather guidance would all be eliminated. All agricultural climatology services to State and Federal agencies would cease as would all liaison activities with the land grant universities and other agencies. Cooperative research with scientists at all universities would end. Some argue that farmers can obtain the weather services they require from [[Page S 14681]] the private sector from the many commercial weather services that operate around the Nation. However, none of the commercial weather services provide the kind of agricultural weather information available from these agricultural weather service centers. Additionally, there are only a very small number of companies that could potentially provide some agricultural services. Commercial operators are generally unwilling to make an investment in developing the kinds of unique products used by agriculture because the market is too small. In areas of concentrated agriculture, such as in California or Florida, the market might be sufficient for the private sector. Markets like Mississippi are too small to support private meteorological services. Some argue that these services should be done by private sector meteorologists and that the National Weather Service constitutes corporate welfare. Let me bring to the attention of my colleagues that the bulk of agriculture and forestry consists of small family operations, not giant corporations. Large farms already hire private meteorologists and will not be affected by office closings. This is going to affect the small- and medium-sized farmers who do not have the money to get expert help and could not afford to contract for weather information. Some may argue that this is an unnecessary service that should no longer be funded by taxpayers, that in a time of smaller budgets, we can no longer afford the $2.1 million to operate the National Weather Service agricultural weather program. However, according to a 1992 study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the modernization of the National Weather Service will reduce agricultural losses by $15 billion and increase agricultural output by $117.9 million annually. This is clearly one of the best bargains in government. The Stoneville Center is a world renown research center with major activities in cotton, soybeans, rice, catfish, and hardwood forestry. At the Stoneville, MI center, more than 200 farmers have been working with the Stoneville Agricultural Weather Service Center to develop a credible agricultural weather forecast system. This center has the potential of producing data that could save millions of dollars in reduced input costs such as pesticide applications, fertilizer, and harvest potential. There is clearly a role for the Federal Government in providing these specialized agricultural services. The production of food and fiber is the most critical component of our economy. With so few Americans now directly producing our food and fiber, it is imperative that we maintain the most efficient production possible. The NWS agricultural and forestry weather program contributes to this efficiency at the lowest possible cost. The roles of the NWS and the private sector are clear. The role of operating and maintaining the agricultural weather data networks is best done by NWS. The same goes for the operations of agricultural weather forecast models. Research and development activities which utilize the observational and forecast data is another primary NWS function. The end result is a great wealth of information. It is the packaging and delivery of this information which can be best done by the private sector. The NWS does not have the resources to produce customized information for each user. This is clearly an important job for the private sector. The NWS and the private sector can work together and share in the provision of weather information to agriculture. There is a right way and a wrong way to privatize these services. This bill represents the wrong way. These services should not be abruptly ended without careful planning and judicious management of the privatization process. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.