Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I certainly would not arbitrarily or capriciously refuse a legitimate request for a modification. If the amendment is changed entirely in its nature, I could not agree to that.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield under his reservation, I think that certainly would be possible in this way. The Senator can offer his amendment tonight, say whatever he wanted to in support of it, and I could move to table it and ask for the yeas and nays. That will be voted on tomorrow. The Senator could be assured that there would be a vote on his amendment tomorrow.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous- consent agreement in hopes the Senate will approve our setting over until tomorrow all remaining votes on amendments that require votes. So I put the following request. I ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments in order to H.R. 1976 under the previous consent agreement must be offered and debated tonight and that any rollcall votes ordered with respect to those amendments be postponed to occur beginning at 9:45 a.m. on Wednesday.

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on those three amendments.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the background of this amendment is that when the House, the other body, was considering this legislation, an amendment was offered on the floor which provides as follows: That no funds in the bill should be allocated under the Market Promotion Program to the U.S. Mink Export Development Council or any mink industry trade association. So by this legislation there was a prohibition suggested in the amendment against allocating MPP funds for this purpose, to promote exports of U.S.-grown mink. I think we have a big problem in trying to substitute our judgment for the decisions that the administrators of the Market Promotion Program have. This amendment does not seek to strike any funds. This amendment does not reduce the appropriation of money to the Market Promotion Program activity. As a matter of fact, we have already debated that issue. The issue was presented to the Senate by Senators Bryan and Bumpers. We debated it at length last night for a full hour. Most Senators had left for the evening. But we debated it, and we had a vote on it today. The vote was about 60-40, as I recall, to table the amendment. The point was made during the discussion--I will repeat it here just briefly--that this program promotes the export of U.S.-grown agriculture commodities: food products, and the like. It is big business for the United States to sell what we produce in the export markets, and with the changes in the Uruguay round of GATT, more and more market opportunities are becoming favorable. This program has proved very helpful. The difficulty I have as manager of the bill with this amendment is that it seeks to substitute the judgment of the Senate, and calls upon it to act on the floor of the Senate for the judgment of the administrators. I have received from the Department of Agriculture information about the program which says that mink exports in 1994 are estimated at about $100 million. That is a substantial increase from earlier levels. The suggestion in the information we are given is that exports to Korea alone could exceed $40 million, which almost doubles the 1993 level. One of the associations that is involved in trying to promote the export of these products says that if it had not been for MPP funding here and the assistance that they provided to promote U.S. mink industry products, we would not have a domestic mink industry in the United States. The fact is 28 States have mink production. In the State of Wisconsin, I remember the number is $19 million in the local economy which depends on this industry alone. So I am hopeful that the Senate will approve our motion to table this amendment and not get into the business of trying to micromanage and legislate changes in this program on an appropriations bill. That is what is being sought. So at the time when Senators have spoken as much as they want to speak, it will be my intention to move to table and ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to request the yeas and nays on those amendments that will require record votes, and they are: The Feingold amendment, the Conrad amendment, and the Bryan-Bumpers amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion about the market promotion program today and yesterday. Last night, we were here on the floor for an hour--these three Senators--talking about this program and their amendment to actually do away with all funding for the program--cancel it, kill it. We had a full debate. We voted on a motion to table their amendment. The motion was agreed to by about 60 to 40, about the same amount of the vote that was cast earlier this year when the Senate rejected, by a vote of 61 to 37, the same proposal on the bill--the rescission bill, the supplemental we had before the Senate. April 6 was the date of that vote. The point is this has already been fully discussed. I am not going to take a lot of time to argue against the amendment. I am going to make one point since this is a different approach to this issue. This amendment seeks to rewrite the program, in effect, not only to authorize the funding at a lower level, which I think is $70 million, but to change a number of the provisions of the bill with legislative language, in effect, describing the kinds of eligible entities who can apply for funds under the market promotion program--the size of the entities, character of the entities, description about ineligible applicants. My problem with that is not that these may not be good suggestions, but that the Senate is being asked to function as a legislative committee. Think about that, Mr. President. We are trying to function as a committee of the whole. They do that in the House when they go into session as a committee of the whole to take up amendments to legislation, and then the House actually reports the bill or approves the bill, and they have a vote on the legislation itself. But here in the Senate we do not have a committee of the whole. We have legislative committees that have that responsibility. I think it is a big mistake to have legislative proposals presented to the Senate for the first time, a case of first impression, here in the Senate Chamber and we are called upon to listen to a few minutes of debate or, as is the case tonight, with almost nobody here but those of us here who are managing the legislation, to listen to the argument and make a decision based on what is best for this program. Should this program be reauthorized? And how should it be managed? What would the level of funding be? These are decisions for the legislative committee to make. They are to look at the options. They are the experts. Senator Bumpers is not on the Agriculture Committee. Senator Bryan is not on the Agriculture Committee. Maybe they should be on the Agriculture Committee. Maybe they want to be on the Agriculture Committee and they are frustrated. They would like to have the opportunity to help write this authorization bill that we are going to be writing in the Agriculture Committee as a part of our reconciliation instruction. And I am told by those who are familiar with some of the proposals in the committee that there will be changes in this program recommended by the Agriculture Committee, and that there may be a reduction in the funding authorized by that committee. That is for them to decide. We should not be on an appropriations bill trying to legislate a new kind of program. So I have a serious problem with the procedure. I urge the Senate to reject this amendment. It is an amendment that we cannot accept, and I hope that the Senate will follow the decision that it made earlier on this bill, on a similar amendment offered by these distinguished Senators. Mr. President, as I understand the procedure, we need to get the yeas and nays ordered on the amendments that we have not been able to accept, so that votes will occur tomorrow. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. COCHRAN

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me simply say in response to the distinguished Senator from California who has just spoken, on this issue of frozen and fresh, I happened to receive a letter from someone in California telling me her views on this issue, back when we were all corresponding with the Food Safety Inspection Service about this proposed regulation. I am going to read this letter and ask unanimous consent a copy of it be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am not quoted in that article. My office said something to the effect that I did not think policy should be established on appropriations bills. I am not sure my staff said that. My staff told me they told this reporter that I did not favor legislation on an appropriations bill. That was one reason why I was opposing that amendment. I am not advocating legislation on this bill. I am saying no funds shall be used to carry out this regulation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object. I make a point of order that the display of any such product would violate rule 17 of the Senate rules.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of the Senator, I put in the Record at the beginning of this discussion a copy of the letter that actually was written on your letterhead, signed by 19 Senators, fully discussed from the point of view that the proposed regulations were unfair, and why, and that we have the interest of consumers at heart as well as fairness in the poultry industry.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time on this side. Mr. President, this is a red herring. The fact is that the funds allocated under this program are to promote U.S. agriculture products. We are seeing the U.S. Poultry and Egg Export Council promoting the purchase of U.S. poultry products and eggs by foreign-owned and operated franchises of McDonald's. That does not mean that goes to corporate headquarters in Chicago, or wherever. This means that we are producing a promotional campaign using these funds to try to help sell more of what we produce in America. It is a good program. It has worked and I hope the Senate will vote ``yes'' on this motion to table. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. If I have 30 seconds, I will yield that to the Senator from California.

Mr. COCHRAN. Let me simply say that in response to the suggestion that large corporations are getting all this money, 80 percent of this money goes to trade associations, farmer cooperative groups, the association of exporters of poultry and eggs, cotton promotion groups, and others who are trying to take up for the interests of America's farmers, ranchers, and those in the food businesses that sell in the international market. We are trying to save American jobs and promote American economic interests, American agriculture interests. These are companies that are involved in those businesses. But the majority of the money goes to small businesses, farmer cooperatives, and organizations like that, who sometimes use those companies to help promote what the ingredients are in their products that are sold in the international market. So we hope Senators will keep that in mind. This is not corporate welfare--the catchy phrase some are using to discredit programs, this one included. It is not well-placed criticism. It is not accurate to judge the worth of this program on the basis of that kind of argument. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. COCHRAN. How much time remains on each side?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no one seeking to address the Senate in support of the amendment, I am going to suggest that the time during the quorum, which I am going to call, be charged to the proponents of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the time be so charged.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my intent to speak a few minutes in opposition to the Bryan amendment, to put in context the decision we will make at 9:45. This is an amendment that does not seek to modify or simply reduce the funding for the Market Promotion Program. It is designed to kill the program, eliminate all funding under this legislation for this program in the next fiscal year. I think that would be a big mistake, Mr. President, and here is why. The Foreign Agriculture Service undertook a study of this program in response to requests from the Congress and determined that for every $1 that we invest in this Market Promotion Program promoting U.S. agriculture commodities and foodstuffs that are exported in the international marketplace, $16 is generated in additional agriculture imports. At a time when we are trying to compete more aggressively in the international market because of the opening up of new markets under the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement, we are trying to do a better job and use all the resources that we can muster to help ensure that we maintain a competitive edge and that we work with our farmers and ranchers and food processors to try to enlarge our share of markets. This is going to have just the opposite effect. So I am hopeful that the Senate will vote against this amendment. I urge all Senators to carefully consider this. This is a proven, tested, workable, and effective program, and we have the facts to prove it. We debated this issue for an hour last night and laid all the facts out on both sides. I hope the Senators this morning will reject this amendment soundly. I reserve the remainder of my time.