Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we all understand that, if you do not use the time and yield it back, the vote could occur earlier.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am prepared to vote. I think everybody is. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed with the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am prepared to yield back the remaining time. I yield back the remainder of my time. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the majority leader has authorized me to announce that this was the last vote today. We do have a number of other amendments, though, under the agreement which we could consider and discuss tonight, and if recorded votes are required, we could have those votes occur tomorrow. We already have under an agreement an amendment on poultry regulations that is set for a time certain tomorrow under the agreement. There is an amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado, Senator Brown, on the peanut program that has the yeas and nays ordered, which will occur tomorrow. Other amendments are identified in this agreement which we could take up this evening and dispose of, some of them on voice vote maybe. We are prepared to consider all the amendments tonight if Senators will be here to offer them. So I encourage those who do have amendments to present them, offer them, let us discuss them and dispose of them, if we can. If rollcall votes are required, we will have those votes tomorrow. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the estimates not only identify the acreage that has been abandoned and which will have reduced yields due to this infestation, but also the translation in losses in terms of millions of dollars in my State of Mississippi. It is a $100 million estimate. But just this week, when I was home in Mississippi this weekend, the newspaper carried a story with new crop loss estimates that have been compiled from throughout the South. It shows that even higher estimates than had earlier been expected are now justified on the basis of the losses that are occurring. We have on our hands, Mr. President, one of the worst disasters in the cotton industry that anyone can remember. Our committee decided that it would be important to make available some additional funds which the Secretary of Agriculture could use to supplement the benefits of the Catastrophic Crop Insurance Program. The Catastrophic Crop Insurance Program is a new program. Farmers were told, when this program was approved, that it would be a substitute for the usual disaster assistance benefits that have occasionally been made available when disasters struck the agriculture sector, and that the amounts of the benefits would be about the same that they would normally get; to qualify for the catastrophic crop insurance, you would be charged $50, and that would be a processing fee. I remember when I first heard about it, I said to the Department of Agriculture people who were briefing us, ``That's too good to be true-- $50. You buy this insurance and it provides the same benefits that the Federal Government has been making available as disaster benefits on an ad hoc basis when they thought it was justified.'' I was assured that is what the promise was. What has happened, as we get down to the real details and we find out what the benefits are of this so-called Catastrophic Crop Insurance Program, we are finding out it does not provide the same coverage that historic disaster assistance programs have provided. Previous disaster programs traditionally provided coverage at 60 percent of [[Page S 13707]] historic yields at 65 percent of the market price. This new catastrophic coverage is 50 percent of historic yield at 60 percent of the market price. That may not sound like a great deal of difference, but it is. It is a substantially different program that is now being made available to disaster victims. I know that one reason for the change and one reason for the adoption of the new Crop Insurance Program was to provide a predictable level of benefit when an agriculture disaster struck, and if farmers were not satisfied that that was enough, they would be encouraged thereby to buy additional coverage. They would buy up to another level of protection on their own. But a lot of farmers have not done that, for varying reasons. Some misunderstood the benefit package that catastrophic insurance provided; some were, frankly, convinced that the additional insurance was too expensive for what they would probably get from it as benefits; and there may have been other reasons. There has always been a question about how the yields are calculated and whether the yields were too high or too low, whether they were individual yields or countywide basis yields. There have been a lot of problems with crop insurance, and everybody knows that. I raise this issue now, and I know it will be debated later by those who are trying to strike this money from the bill, so Senators will be on notice that we are probably going to have to vote on this amendment. Unlike other disasters that have been occasioned by flood or bad weather, this is a disaster that actually resulted in farmers going out and spending money to try to prevent it on their own, trying to apply what they hoped would be new chemicals that were promised to work and did not or did not work well enough to justify the enormous expenses that farmers went to to protect themselves. Here they were. It was just weeks away from these bolls ripening and producing the cotton for harvest when they noticed that these bolls were being infested with bud worms and army worms and other pests. One part of the story is good news, and that is that in many parts of our State, the delta region particularly, the cotton had gotten to the stage of development where it was not affected by the worms, and so we are not talking about every area of our State being equally devastated by this problem. But we do have many areas of our State where there are total losses and many areas where the yields are not nearly what they were expected to be. It is disheartening and it truly is a disaster of enormous proportions. So I hope the Senators who are resisting this effort to provide additional assistance will reconsider. The amount of money in the bill for this purpose is about $40 million, and Senator Kerrey's amendment will strike that money. We hope that the Senate will vote against it. I am going to ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to put in the Record some additional supporting documentation on this, specifically an article that I talked about that was in the paper this weekend which more clearly describes the seriousness of the situation and the enormous losses that are occurring in Mississippi and elsewhere as a result of this cotton crop disaster.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I have not yielded the floor. Do I have the floor?

Mr. COCHRAN. I call for the regular order. Amendment No. 2686

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me just thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his generous comments and his support for the provisions of the bill which he described. It is very difficult in this time of diminishing access to funds under our allocation and budget resolution to keep this caseload up to the existing level. It has been done with the full cooperation of the other members of the subcommittee. We recognize that it is an important program. It is a program that saves money, I think, in terms of health care costs and learning deficiencies that would occur were it not for the proper nutrition at these ages. So I appreciate very much the Senator noticing the hard work that was put in on this subject.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator please withhold?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. We do not have to vote on both of them.

Mr. COCHRAN. We would not want to vote on the one relating to the poultry issue that Senator Boxer is interested in, only that relating to the disaster assistance for cotton farmers.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this bill proposes fiscal year 1996 funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm credit system. As reported, the bill recommends total new budget authority for this new fiscal year of $63.8 billion. This is $5.2 billion less than the fiscal year 1995 level. It is $2.6 billion less than the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request. But it is $1.2 billion more than the level recommended in bill passed by the House of Representatives. One interesting thing to observe about this bill is that over 63 percent of the funds proposed to be appropriated in this legislation for the Department of Agriculture will go to funding the Nation's domestic food assistance programs. I can recall, when I was first honored by being given the opportunity of chairing this subcommittee in 1981, the majority of the funds appropriated to the Department of Agriculture for its activities went to funding support activities for production agriculture-- reimbursements to the Commodity Credit Corporation, for example, for net realized losses; funds for agriculture research; for soil and water conservation; for rural development. And included in these activities were, of course, the food and nutrition programs such as the Food Stamp Program, Women, Infants, and Children Program; the School Lunch Programs, elderly feeding programs, commodity distribution programs, a wide variety of domestic food assistance programs. But, today, we have seen a trend which has now reached a point where the clear majority of the funding required by the Department of Agriculture is for the food and nutrition programs rather than for traditional agriculture programs. So, as we discuss and consider any amendments that Senators will offer to this bill, we must keep in mind that we are doing our part in this bill to meet the challenge of deficit reduction, in trying to control the growth of spending at the Federal level. We have $5.2 billion proposed in this bill, less than the amount of budget authority in this fiscal year. I think it is a clear illustration of the commitment of this subcommittee to fulfill the commitment that we have all made in the budget resolution to get better control over our spending practices at the Federal level and to meet the challenge of balancing the budget under the plan to do so over the next 7 years. To compare the 63 percent level of funding of domestic food programs in this bill with previous years, in this fiscal year those funds total 58 percent of the budget authority in this bill. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-year spending actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.310 billion in budget authority and $13.608 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996. These amounts are consistent with the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations. As a result of these constraints of allocation and the budget resolution assumptions and directions, few funding increases are recommended in this bill for any programs and activities under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. Most programs are funded at or below this current fiscal year level. There is one significant program increase provided in this bill, a $260 million increase for the WIC Program, the Women, Infants, and Children Program. This is the same as contained in the bill passed by the House. This increase is necessary if we are going to maintain the 1995 WIC caseload levels during the next year. Other discretionary spending increases include an additional $17.9 million for rural housing rental assistance to meet the estimated costs of contract renewal and servicing requirements; an increase of $42.9 million to continue the efforts of the Food Safety and Inspection Service to assure the safety of our Nation's food supply; a $5.1 million net increase in rural housing loan program authorizations; a $50 million increase in farm operating loans; and a $33 million increase for the food donations program on Indian reservations. Except for rural housing, all of these increases fall well below the increased levels requested by the President in the [[Page S 13691]] budget submission we received this year. There are funds in the bill for agriculture research and extension programs. In my judgment, the $1 billion--a little over $1 billion-- appropriated for these activities are funds well invested. We are confronted right now with a real challenge in the production agriculture area because of increased competition from overseas, producers in the international marketplace. We are confronted with new challenges of pest management, of trying to improve yields while at the same time preserving in a more aggressive way our soil and water resources. To accomplish all of that, and to still make it possible for farmers to operate profitably, we have to invest in upgrading and maintaining our modern technological advantage. That is the key to the future productivity of our Nation's farmers. That is the key to the realization of the expectations of the American people to have an adequate supply of reasonably priced food and consumer products. So that is why this part of the bill, in my view, is so important. I wish we had the ability under the constraints of the budget and our allocation to appropriate more money for these purposes. Much of this research is done in Agriculture Research Service facilities throughout the country. These are Department of Agriculture-operated research facilities such as here in the Washington area, in Beltsville, MD, and throughout the country. Other research is done through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service account that is funded in this bill, where funds are made available to university and college- research facilities and other sponsoring entities, where funds are matched by the Federal Government to help pay the costs of important research in the agriculture food production and related areas of concern. So although the $1.025 billion for agriculture research and extension program activity is $22 million less than this current year's level and $17 million less than the President's request, it is $30 million more than recommended in the House-passed bill. So, in conference we will have a challenge to negotiate what we hope will be an increase in the allocation of funds for these purposes. For extension activities, the bill provides $2 million less than the current year's level. But that level of funding is still $24 million over the House bill level. For farm credit programs, the bill provides $3.2 billion in loan levels, which is an increase of $174 million from the House-recommended level. The bill also recommends funding for a new Rural Community Advancement Program. We have recommended the consolidation of funding for seven rural development grant and loan programs under one account, consistent with the Senate Agriculture Committee's actions on these programs. Senators will remember that we have just completed authorizing a reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. This has principally been driven by the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] who, as the ranking Republican member of the Agriculture Committee a few years ago, strongly urged our committee to pressure the administration to embark upon a reorganization program. As a matter of fact, current law authorized many of the steps that were urged to be taken by Senator Lugar, and others, in this area. But the administration wanted the Congress involved because obviously there were controversies. There were differences of opinion about how far to go, how much to change, which offices to close, how to consolidate regional offices, and where the new offices would be relocated--a wide range of controversial and political hot potato-type issues which the Senate Agriculture Committee worked on very hard. Senator Leahy was chairman when our effort began and now, under the chairmanship of Senator Lugar with Senator Leahy as ranking member, we are monitoring. We are monitoring the reorganization effort to ensure that, first of all, it is consistent with the new authorities for reorganization granted by the Congress to the President and the administration and that it also is undertaken in a way that makes the Department more efficient and saves money and cuts down the costs that are unnecessary--in many areas, where there has been duplication and overlapping--unnecessary expenditures of funds. So this bill we are presenting today carries forward some of the principles contained in the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act and emphasizes consolidation for the purpose of improving delivery of services as well as the efficiency of the Department of Agriculture. So we spell out in this bill the consolidation of funding for some of these programs so that our bill will reflect the changes and the efforts that have been made or proposed by both the administration and the Congress. The administration proposed to consolidate a number of programs that we disagreed with them about--their total number was 12 programs--into something called the rural performance partnership initiative. But our proposal consolidates only 7 programs, and represents a reduction of 15.9 percent from the current appropriations level versus the House bill, which proposes a 17.7-percent reduction. One thing that we were concerned about--I will have to be candid with Senators--is that the administration was suggesting almost a block- grant-type approach to the administration, that they could then allocate to State administrators and give them a wide range of discretion without oversight authority in the Congress for how these programs were to be administered. I think it would be an abrogation of congressional responsibility if we went along with that recommendation as I understood it. We are for giving more flexibility to managers and administration officials, but we are not prepared at this point to just simply send a lump sum appropriation to the Department of Agriculture and say, ``Why don't you use this any way you think is appropriate.'' We are here in a representative capacity for the States, and on the House side for individual citizens, and we have a role to play in this. We are taking that role very seriously. So in our oversight hearings and in the hearings we had in the beginning of this year, where administration officials came to testify about their proposals and how the funds that we would appropriate would be needed, we questioned them very carefully about their intentions in using these funds and how they would shift funds from one activity to another based on local situations. So what I am saying is that we are in favor of consolidation, we are in favor of giving managers more authority than they may have been given in the past in the strict categories of funding, but we are not willing to turn loose completely of our responsibilities to monitor carefully the administration of these programs and the expenditure of these funds for rural development activities. Rural water and sewer system projects and loans to help build infrastructure facilities in areas that are economically disadvantaged are all a part of this effort. Housing programs, which have been given less than the funds we think are needed by the other body, are also very important. There are a lot of unmet needs in many parts of the country in this area of concern. In my State of Mississippi, we hope to continue to have a very aggressive effort by the Federal agencies in that State to help improve the economic opportunities of those who live in the small towns and rural communities, opportunities for jobs, opportunities to enjoy a standard of living that will be attractive rather than so unattractive that people are forced to move into the cities. We think that is bad public policy, to see the rural communities deteriorate to such a point where they are uninhabitable and folks do not want to live there anymore. That is a real problem we face, and we are trying to do something about that in the way we are funding programs in this legislation. States have responsibilities, too. Of course, the private sector does. But we have in this bill some special efforts that we hope will provide incentives for economic activity in rural areas and small towns. We are going to continue to monitor the administration's activities to be sure they are working. For discretionary conservation programs, the bill recommends $6 million [[Page S 13692]] more than the House level. It also provides $2.9 billion in total rural housing loan authorizations. This is $457 million more than the House level and $146 million more than the President's request. So we are committed in this legislation to doing something about rural housing. The other agencies that are funded in this bill, as I mentioned at the outset, include the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. We trust that the funds proposed to be appropriated for these agencies meet the needs of these agencies. There is always a request for more funding than we are able to provide because we are cutting spending, and we have to remind those who come to testify before our committee that this applies to everybody. There is very little opportunity to provide increases. I have highlighted some of the increases. But it is very rare to see any account in this bill that is funded above the current level of funding. However, the bill does allow increases in funding for some FDA activities, food and drug activities, supported by the authorized Prescription Drug Act, and mammography facilities inspection user fee collections. This, incidentally, is the same amount as recommended by the other body. The bill also provides a $1 billion Food Stamp Program reserve which was not recommended by the House. The administration strongly urged the inclusion of a reserve, and traditionally there has been a reserve to allow for unforeseen activities, economic problems, natural disasters which would cause an emergency need for food stamps that might run the program above the expected level of funding. The administration wanted us to appropriate $2.5 billion, but we think the amount we have in the bill will be sufficient to protect the continuation of benefits in the event of any unexpected rise in program participation levels. In addition, the bill provides $20.5 million above the House level for the Consolidated Farm Service Agency as well as $10 million for InfoShare. This is the Department's project to integrate its information systems, to improve service delivery to those who depend upon farm and rural service agency activities. Most of the money in this bill--80 percent--is required to be appropriated under the mandates of Federal law. Only 20 percent of the total amount funded in this bill is discretionary. And so when Senators are looking at this bill and they are saying, well, we can add money or we can take money out, you are only going to be able to suggest amendments to 20 percent of the total $63.8 billion contained in this bill. The other funds that are appropriated are required to be spent by law. We do not have any choice. That is why it is important for us to continue our efforts on the second track of changing the law in many areas so that the future requirements for funding will be less than they are today in those areas in which Congress decides to make changes. If we are going to get to that balanced budget figure in 7 years, we are going to have to make changes not only in the appropriations of funds as these bills come up but, more importantly, in the requirements of law that force Congress to spend money every year. So this bill contains 80 percent mandatory expenditures. To conclude, Mr. President, almost all agriculture and rural development programs have been reduced below current levels to meet the subcommittee's lower discretionary spending allocations. Further cuts in spending limitations have been necessary to offset the few increases that are provided in the bill. Mr. President, it has been a distinct pleasure and privilege for me to continue to have the honor of working with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas. He is my neighbor. He is my friend. He has been my colleague now in the Senate for 16 years. I have been here 16 years. I think he was elected to the Senate the same year I was elected to the House. So we have been here for long enough, I suppose, to know the accounts and to know and understand the needs of our States. And this bill reflects a consensus of Republican and Democratic interests as represented on our subcommittee. And I believe that the bill represents a balanced and responsible level of funding recommendations within the limited resources available to this subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I know there may be some differences of opinion on specific items in the bill. But if there are, I hope Senators will bring them up. If they have amendments, we will be glad to consider them. We hope to be able to complete action on this bill tomorrow. And under the unanimous-consent agreement, there will not be any votes on any amendments today before the hour of 5:15 p.m. I also want to thank all the members of the subcommittee who have helped us develop this legislation. We had a lot of hearings. We had an opportunity to look at the President's budget request. Other requests that Members have suggested we considered. We have tried to be fair with everybody. And I hope that Senators will agree and also agree that this bill does recommend an investment of funds and an allocation of available resources that will help sustain our effort to continue to be the most productive agriculture economy in the world. We have a lot at stake in maintaining this ability, not only to feed and clothe our own citizens here in the United States, but to use this great resource as an economic benefit to create jobs through the sale of agriculture commodities and foodstuffs throughout the world. We are the largest economic exporter of food commodities in the world. This year we are going to bring into our economy a total of about $50 billion that would represent the value of exports that have been generated by our farm and food industries. So there is a tremendous amount depending upon the support activities that we have funded in this bill. So I hope Senators will support the legislation. And we would appreciate it very much, if you do have amendments, to please bring them to the floor and let us debate them today, complete our debate on as many as we can so we can pass the bill tomorrow. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am confident there are Senators who wish to be heard on this amendment before we vote on it. I am also sure that it is probable that this vote will be postponed until tomorrow. But I hope that those who do want to speak on the amendment will come to the floor and do that so we can complete our debate on the amendment and leave to tomorrow the vote on the amendment, if that is the will of the Senate. There have been, of course, in the past, amendments similar to this that have been before the body, so it is not a new issue. We have debated this from time to time. I am confident that there are arguments that can be made on the other side and will be by Senators who are experts in this program. From the point of view of the managers of the bill, though, I would say that this is another example of an effort to modify with legislative language, in effect, programs that are now under consideration and review by the Agriculture Committee. We have this week a markup scheduled on commodity program changes that are designed to meet the challenge of the budget reconciliation and resolution that was adopted by the Congress to reduce the cost of the programs under the jurisdiction of all the legislative committees. This is under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, and it may very well be that changes are going to be directed or recommended by the Agriculture Committee in this program. I do not know the extent to which this amendment, if it is adopted, will affect those comprehensive changes that may be recommended by the Agriculture Committee. When we were talking about the peanut amendment that the distinguished Senator had offered, I mentioned that I had included the peanut program in a proposal that I have submitted to the committee which is designed to reform that program and reduce the costs of the program over time. I know that if we adopt the peanut amendment as proposed by the Senator from Colorado, it would reduce the savings that are now estimated by CBO to be attributable to the farm bill I am proposing. There may be other Senators who have suggestions to make in the Agriculture Committee about the tobacco program. I do not know the extent to which this amendment would affect those projected savings. But I do know that there will be some effect, and the question before the Senate is whether we ought to adopt amendments such as this, knowing that they are going to be legislative in nature and will encroach on the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. So I voice that concern as a concern that applies not only to this amendment but other amendments like it. I discourage Senators who do have changes in legislative language and suggest that it would be more appropriate and in better keeping with the way we should do business here in the Senate to bring those up when the legislative committees' bills are on the floor--or bring them up in the committees of jurisdiction, even better, so those committees can review these suggestions. I respect very much the Senator from Colorado. He is one of the best minds in [[Page S 13704]] the Senate. He is a Senator who has always been on the lookout for ways to improve the efficiency of Government programs and reduce unnecessary costs. He is a leader in achieving results. Again, he is showing his ability to carefully analyze Federal programs and look for ways that we can improve them in terms of their efficiency. The savings of taxpayers' dollars that will result from the changes are quite obvious. This is another example which shows his diligence and his ability in this regard. So I commend him for his continued efforts to do what he is trying to do. I applaud that effort. Having said that, I hope that if Senators do want to comment on the legislation and the proposed amendment, they will come to the floor to do so, and I will put in a quorum call to ascertain whether we do have Senators who want to speak further on this amendment at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed his statement.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know there may be other Senators who want to speak on this amendment. I have expressed my concerns already. We have heard from the distinguished Senator from Alabama. It is likely that we will be able to vote on this tomorrow, rather than today. There are other amendments that we know will be offered today and debated. We can dispose of those amendments. Because we have had a pretty full discussion of this suggested change in the bill, I am going to ask unanimous-consent that we set aside this amendment and proceed to take another amendment up for consideration that the Senator from Colorado will offer. So I make that unanimous consent request to set aside the amendment temporarily.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me say that my concerns at this early point in the debate on this amendment surround the fact that we are working in the Agriculture Committee at this time and a meeting is called for this week to consider changes in existing farm legislation, including proposals to modify and reform the peanut program. I have introduced legislation, for example, that seeks to reduce the overall costs of these programs, but to do so in a way that does not undermine the ability of farmers to continue to produce efficiently and operate at a profit, but how to go about downsizing the expenses of agriculture programs and still maintain that ability to produce what we need in our country, the food and fiber needs, to meet those needs and to still have a sufficient amount to export to contribute to our overall economic health is a big challenge. I do not think we will be able to adopt incremental change on an appropriations bill that modifies this or any other commodity program that will achieve the goal in a coherent, rational, and orderly way. This may be an excellent amendment in terms of improving the efficient administration of this program. But I would hate to see us adopt this amendment and have it undermine or in any way adversely affect the effort that we are making for comprehensive reform of agriculture programs in the legislative subcommittee. So that is the concern that I want to raise at this point. I know there are others who may have more experience and are more of [[Page S 13700]] an expert in the understanding of the workings of the peanut program and how this particular amendment might affect the administration of the peanut program, but I express that concern, still hoping that we can fulfill the commitment that we have made to reduce the costs of these programs. I know the Congressional Budget Office, for example, has estimated that the reforms I have suggested in my bill to reform the peanut program could achieve savings of over $300 million over 7 years. This amendment will reduce the cost of the program somewhat. But if we adopt this amendment and then we ask CBO to analyze the effect of the Cochran bill, that is going to have a negative effect. And in our overall effort at comprehensive reform and meeting the targets of reconciliation, we could actually be penalized in our efforts to reform the farm bill by adopting amendments like this one in an appropriations bill. Then we might have to cut other programs, nutrition programs, school lunch program, other farm programs, in order to make up the difference. So I am hopeful the Senate will take that into account and consider that as we look at this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2688 to Committee Amendment on Page 83, Line 4 through Page 84, Line 2 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to carry out the peanut program)

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada not only for his decision to vitiate the yeas and nays on his amendment, but for his kind comments about the managers of the bill and our efforts to manage this bill for the Senate. He is a good friend and one of the best friends I have in the Senate. I admire and respect him. We continue to enjoy working with him on matters of mutual concern that come before the Senate. Mr. President, I do not know we have adopted the amendment. We probably need to do that. If there is no further debate, we ask the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have conferred with Senator Bumpers' staff and also conferred with the legislative committee staff that has jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration in this specific legislation which is the subject of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. It is our understanding there is no objection from the legislative committee to accepting this amendment. Under the status of the debate, as I understand it, while the yeas and nays were requested and the yeas and nays were ordered, a unanimous-consent order was entered to vitiate the yeas and nays if we were going to accept it on a voice vote. We are prepared now to accept the amendment on a voice vote and we are prepared to proceed to that.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and all Senators for permitting us this unanimous-consent agreement. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I further ask that immediately following the vote on passage of H.R. 4, as amended, the Senate resume H.R. 1976, and there be 4 minutes for debate on the committee amendment, to be equally divided in the usual form, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the committee amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there has been a unanimous-consent agreement worked out in connection with the handling of an amendment to the appropriations bill. The amendment is a committee amendment. The Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for herself and Senator Feinstein--and maybe others--has offered to strike that amendment. In connection with that, I propose the following: I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, the Senate resume consideration of the excepted committee amendment regarding chickens, and there be 2 hours to be equally divided between Senators Boxer and Cochran or their designees.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. No. Please proceed.