Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, one other caveat, if the Senator has completed his statement. We have inquired of the Food and Drug Administration what requirements of law, if any, might be repealed by this amendment related to their obligation to inspect on the basis of determining the fitness for human consumption of imported consumable products. And we are advised that the FTE's, the staff hours that are used for this purpose, are directly related to the obligation of the FDA to certify the fitness for human consumption of imported foodstuffs. So I am told that is their reaction. So that is not the sole purpose of the employees who are described by the Senator from Colorado, to see whether or not the tea tastes good. That has been the big issue. It sounds kind of ridiculous that people are telling us whether tea tastes good or not. Anybody can decide whether or not something tastes good. That is not what we are suggesting ought to be protected in terms of any statutory language that may be affected by this amendment. But if we find that there is a legitimate responsibility to determine whether or not imported foodstuffs will be dangerous for human consumption by citizens of the United States, that is another matter. I hope, as we proceed with the consideration of this issue, whether it is in the markup of the agriculture legislation this year, the rewriting of the farm bill, or wherever else we might have to consider this, that we keep in mind that the FDA is not in the business, or should not be in the business, of just determining whether food tastes good, but whether it is dangerous, whether it has potential harm or consequences. I think we do want to keep in place the authority for those determinations. Having said that, I think the Senator knows what he is doing, and he is not trying to put anybody in jeopardy of contaminated imported tea. We will make sure that, as we review this statutory language, either on this or other legislation, we keep in mind that important consideration.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed his statement and yields the floor, let me say we already this morning had an opportunity to talk about this issue during the discussion of the Reid amendment, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. We discussed during the pendency of his amendment the fact that 2 years ago an amendment was adopted on the floor of the Senate prohibiting the use of any appropriated funds to pay the expenses or the costs of this so-called Tea Board. It was our understanding at the time that FDA, as part of its responsibility to inspect imported food consumables, had a role to play in determining the fitness for human consumption of imported tea because it was an imported consumable product, and that was the justification Congress was given when inquiries were submitted to the agency about this program and the need for these funds. It was the sense of the Senate at that time, and we debated the issue then and we agreed, that there should be in the legislation a prohibition against the use of funds to pay the costs of this Tea Board, this expert Board of persons, one of whom had to be employed under this law the Senator from Colorado talks about to serve on this board. I have no quarrel whatsoever with insisting upon the language that has previously been approved by Congress on this subject. We have inquired already this morning about the reaction of the FDA to accepting the language offered by the Senator from Nevada earlier today. We have accepted that amendment. It has been approved by the Senate on a voice vote. He, likewise, had asked for the yeas and nays and agreed to vitiate the yeas and nays. I do not know of anybody who is going to vote against the amendment. I certainly am not going to defend the continued use, if it is going on, of federally appropriated funds for the so-called tea tasters that the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Colorado have brought to our attention again. I do not know what the reaction of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to this amendment would be. The only thing that is new in this amendment that was not contained in the Reid amendment is the repeal of a legislative enactment which is spelled out in the amendment offered by Senator Brown. I hope that we will refrain from using this appropriations bill as a vehicle for the adoption of amendments that strike out previously enacted legislation. This is not a bill to rewrite farm legislation, Food and Drug Administration authorities, or any other legislative enactment. It is not appropriate on this bill to revisit the body of Federal law on a number of different subjects, including the authorization for this so-called inspection or tea board. So I hope that Senators will not get the idea that since I am not opposing this amendment that I agree that it is the thing to do, to take up proposals to repeal certain previously enacted laws by the Congress. I know there are Senators who want to make changes in different kinds of farm program language. I hope that Senators will resist offering those on this bill and wait until we have the farm bill on the floor, wait until the Agriculture Committee has completed its review of all laws on the subject of production agriculture and food inspection and the like. If there are amendments that should be made to existing laws on those subjects, it seems to me the best practice would be to wait until we have that bill on the floor and offer the amendments at that time to that legislation. This bill appropriates money to fund the programs, it does not write the authority to fund the programs. So we are not talking in this amendment about a funding level, except to say, [[Page S 13698]] and I agree with the Senator, that we should prohibit the use of funds appropriated in this bill to carry out the activities described in the Senator's amendment. So with that caveat, I suggest that we accept the amendment. I hope the Senator will consider vitiating the yeas and nays. I do not know of any Senator who would vote against this. Maybe it is controversial, but I do not think it is controversial to me. I think the Senator is on the right track, and we ought to do what he says.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we do know of a number of amendments Senators intend to offer to this legislation. We hope we can proceed to consider them in an orderly way. It would be a shame to have periods of time when we do not have amendments being debated or considered by the Senate during today and then wait until tomorrow and everybody wants to offer their amendments tomorrow just before we are going to vote on final passage. So I encourage Senators to come to the floor now, as Senator Reid from Nevada has done, to present their amendments and let us dispose of the amendments or at least debate them, and if we need to have record votes then we will order record votes. We could have a record vote--I know at least one is ordered under the agreement, maybe two; one, at least, after 5:15 today. Then the other votes, if they are needed, will occur tomorrow. We have an order already entered for two amendments to be voted on, and final passage of the welfare reform bill tomorrow at 2:45. There is a period of time tomorrow set aside for concluding remarks on welfare reform. So as Senators can see, we need to make progress today so we can complete action on this bill and all amendments to it, if at all possible, by noon tomorrow. That was our commitment to the majority leader when we were authorized to take this bill up today, and that is why we began on the bill at 10 o'clock, so Senators could come and offer their amendments and have them debated today. So we hope Senators will cooperate with the managers of the bill in that regard. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as the Senator discussed his amendment, I recalled that we had this issue before the Senate, as he said, 2 years ago. My recollection is that we agreed at that time that there should not be any Federal funds appropriated by the Congress for this Board of Tea experts, and we specifically included language in the bill that prohibited any funds appropriated in the legislation be used for that purpose. I am told, as we were sitting here trying to recall the exact details of that, that the FDA does have some responsibility, under its authority to inspect imported foodstuffs, to determine whether they are safe for human consumption. There is some authority for them to inspect imported foods, and this is an imported consumable food, but that no funds would be used that were appropriated especially for paying expenses of this Board of Tea experts. Our recollection is that industry decided that they would provide the funds to carry out the work that was being done. I thought that is what was being done. We are checking with the FDA right now to get a reaction from that agency and to find out exactly what their side of the story is. Are they using funds we are appropriating after we have specifically prohibited the use of Federal funds for that purpose? I want to know the answer to that because I agree with the Senator from Nevada, if we have legislated a prohibition on the use of appropriated funds and this agency continues to use funds that are not authorized, we need to know about it. We need to get somebody up here to answer to that. I am sympathetic with the amendment the Senator is offering. I urge the Senate approve it. If, in fact, they are not using appropriated funds, I do not see any point in kicking a dead mule. We could bring the dead mule in here and have all 100 Senators line up here and come kick it if that would make us all feel better, but I do not see any point in going through that. I do not see any need for voting on it if it is not happening and they are not using the appropriated money. I sympathize with the Senator and appreciate his bringing it to the floor of the Senate.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope Senators will--as suggested by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas--come to the floor now and offer amendments. We will be happy to debate them and consider them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his kind remarks and for his help and hard work in putting together this legislation. When we presented this bill to the full Committee on Appropriations, a number of committee amendments were adopted and approved at that point. I am going to propose a unanimous-consent request that these committee amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, with some exceptions which will include two amendments that we adopted, one of which had to do with an earmark of funds that would be available to the Secretary of Agriculture for additional and supplemental disaster assistance and, in addition, to the catastrophic crop insurance benefits that are available to agriculture producers. During the full committee markup, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska indicated that he would offer an amendment to strike that provision. So that is exempted from this request. There is also a provision in the bill dealing with a regulation promulgated by the Department of Agriculture relating to the labeling of frozen poultry products. One or more of the Senators from California will offer an amendment on that subject. So that amendment is exempted from this proposal. With that explanation, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments to H.R. 1976 be considered and agreed to, en bloc, with the exception of the portion of the committee amendment appearing on page 83, line 4, down through and including line 2 on page 84, provided that no points of order are waived thereon, and that the measure, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, over the last 2 months cotton crops in many counties in Mississippi have suffered severe damage due to unusually high insect infestations. It is estimated that over 160,000 acres of cotton have been damaged amounting to a loss of over $100 million. This devastation has not only struck Mississippi, but Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Georgia as well. Early estimates provided by the National Cotton Council, State extension services, and State departments of agriculture show approximately 1.6 million acres affected all together with over $700 million losses to farmers. Cotton farmers have spent large amounts of money trying to control these infestations. Many in my State will not even harvest their crops because of the extensive damage. Many will have crop yields so low that they will not even be able to recover their production costs. [[Page S 13541]] Farmers have catastrophic crop insurance coverage which was mandated in the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1994 as a requirement for participation in the cotton program. However, the damages from this disaster will far exceed this coverage. I am introducing legislation which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide supplemental crop disaster assistance in addition to benefits provided in the Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, if the Secretary determines that an extraordinary disaster situation exists. The Government's Catastrophic Crop Insurance program is not sufficient to help the farmers in the situation they are to recover and stay in business. More must be done. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I regret that I must oppose the amendment of my good friend, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. I agree with him that our public assistance programs ought to encourage work and not dependency. But it seems to me that this amendment affects the wrong people. For example, individuals who have a long job history, but who are laid off when a factory closes, would be denied benefits under the amendment. This result concerns me. Individuals who have never been on the Food Stamp Program and who have always worked seem to me to be those whom this program ought to help--people who face a temporary setback. In the case I have described, individuals who have been laid off when a factory closes may face high local unemployment conditions and may find it difficult to get a job. A major goal of the Agriculture Committee was to preserve a safety net for people who have played by the rules and need a helping hand through hard times, while ending the free ride for those who have taken advantage of the system. As a matter of fact, there are numerous provisions in the bill to promote work and to deny benefits to those who will not work even though they are able-bodied and could be working. For example, States will--for the first time--be able to permanently disqualify repeat violators of work rules under this bill. Mr. President, we have worked to analyze a number of suggestions for reducing the costs of this program, for tightening the rules, and making true reform come to pass. We think this is a balanced and thoughtful approach that we are recommending to the Senate for its action. I hope the Senate will support the committee's effort.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues who were involved in drafting this amendment on missile defense. The hard work that went into the crafting of this compromise is strong evidence of both the importance of the issue and the dedication of the members and staff who spent many days and nights attempting to defense common ground on this critical issue. Their efforts, and the several votes we have already had on the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization and appropriations bills regarding missile defense will be viewed one day as the turning point in the debate on defending America and American interests against ballistic missile attack. There are elements of this compromise that I am satisfied with. For example, section 232(9) contains the following language: ``Due to limitations in the ABM Treaty which preclude deployment of more than 100 ground-based ABM interceptors at a [[Page S 12654]] single site, the United States is currently prohibited from deploying a national missile defense system capable of defending the continental United States, and Hawaii against even the most limited ballistic missile attacks.'' While some might find virtue in being defenseless against even the most limited of threats--a threat not even contemplated during the negotiations of the ABM Treaty--I do not. This defenselessness can only serve as an invitation to those with interests that are hostile to our own to develop or acquire the capability to put the United States at risk from long-range ballistic missiles. That this amendment recognizes our inability to defend against even a limited threat should be regarded as progress. The recent revelations about Saddam Hussein's weapons program should teach us that we won't ever know as much about some ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programs as we think we do. Combine this with the cavalier export control regimes of other countries currently possessing these weapons and delivery systems, and the oft- stated l10 years until the United States could be threatened by long- range missiles sounds more like wishful thinking than dispassionate analysis. I have three major concerns with this amendment: First, unlike the committee-reported bill, the amendment does not require the deployment of a national missile defense system capable of defending all of the United States against even the most limited of threats. This must change. We have been engaged for too long in developing for deployment the necessary systems. Instead of committing to deploy an NMD system against a limited threat, this amendment commits to more procrastination. We've had enough of this, and anything short of a commitment to deploy is unacceptable. Second, section 238 of the amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement an ABM/TMD demarcation agreement with any of the states of the former Soviet Union which is more restrictive than that specified in section 238(b) without the advice and consent of the Senate or enactment of subsequent legislation. This funding prohibition is fine, as far as it goes; unfortunately, it does not go far enough. The amendment is silent on the possibility that the administration could enact a more restrictive demarcation unilaterally. In essence, the amendment tells the administration that if it wants to have a more restrictive demarcation standard than that spelled out all it has to do is announce the standard unilaterally, without Russian agreement. This amendment would not prohibit the use of funds by the administration if it were simply to take the current Russian proposal on demarcation and adopt it as the unilateral position of the United States. To go one step further, as written this amendment would allow both the United States and Russia to adopt the same Russian proposal unilaterally without triggering the prohibition on the use of funds in section 238(c). If we are not willing to permit, as part of a bilateral or multilateral agreement, a more restrictive demarcation standard than that specified in the amendment, why should we be willing to allow the adoption of a more restrictive standard unilaterally? Third, prior to deployment of a national missile defense system capable against a limited threat, section 233(3) of the amendment mandates congressional review of, ``(A) the affordability and operational effectiveness of such a system; (B) the threat to be countered by such a system; and (C) ABM Treaty considerations with respect to such a system.'' In addition to the fact that section 233(3) (A) and (B) are unnecessary restatements of a basic purpose of each year's Defense authorization and appropriations bills for all defense programs, the requirement in section 233(3)(C) is completely backward. Instead of requiring review of the effect of defending America on the ABM Treaty, we ought to review the effect of the ABM Treaty on defending America. The defense of our country is more important to me than the defense of a treaty that puts our country at risk. There are other parts of the amendment in need of improvement, though they are of lesser importance than the problems I've already raised. I'll conclude by making four observations: First, notwithstanding the desire by some to ignore the threat posed to the United States by weapons of mass destruction and their ballistic missile delivery systems, this threat is serious and we cannot continue to procrastinate over employing the means at hand to reduce this threat. Second, a national missile defense against a limited threat would in no way undermine United States-Russian deterrence, and would only enhance deterrence of rogue nations or groups with interests contrary to those of the United States, all of whom are limited by scarcity of funds. We would do well to pay close attention to what Secretary Perry said recently, that, ``The bad news is that in this era, deterrence may not provide even the cold comfort it did during the cold war. We may be facing terrorists or rogue regimes with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons at the same time in the future, and they may not buy into our deterrence theory. Indeed, they may be madder than MAD.'' Third, however the Russian Duma acts on the START II Treaty, its decision will be based on many factors, only one of which is their perception of United States actions with regard to the ABM Treaty. It is incorrect to suggest that Duma ratification of START II is based solely on our ballistic missile defense legislation, and the Senate cannot allow itself to be held hostage by threats of retaliation by the Duma. Fourth, the missile defense provisions in the underlying bill will not violate the ABM Treaty unless the administration takes no action to modify the treaty. Indeed, Secretary of State Christopher made this point in an August 14, 1995 cable, where in talking points provided for selected U.S. embassies he said, ``The provisions as proposed by the Senate Armed Services Committee call for deployment of a national, multiple-site missile defense that, if deployed, without treaty amendment, would violate the ABM Treaty.'' Secretary Christopher is saying that a multiple-site NMD system could be made ABM Treaty- compliant by simply amending the treaty. The assertions that have been made on this floor and by administration officials that, in and of itself, the underlying bill violates the ABM Treaty, are wrong. If you don't want to take my word for it, ask Secretary Christopher. I think the amendment weakens the committee-reported Missile Defense Act of 1995, but having said that it is important to get this bill to conference where we will have an opportunity to improve these provisions.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have prepared and taped for broadcast the Republican response to President Clinton's national radio address. My comments address the need to reform our Nation's welfare system. The August recess should give all Senators the opportunity to discuss with our constituents their views on welfare reform. When we return in September, I look forward the passage of a welfare reform bill that will be signed by President Clinton. I ask that my remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: The Republican Response to the President's Saturday Radio Address If there is any area of government activity that cries out for radical change it is our welfare programs. While the President has talked about changing the system, it was the Republican leadership that stepped forward with specific proposals for reform. As a Presidential candidate, Bill Clinton promised to ``end welfare as we know it.'' Yet for the first two years of the Clinton Administration--when the Democrats controlled not only the White House but both Houses of Congress--nothing was done. In the State Houses and in Congress, Republicans are making things happen. We have had legislation introduced in the Senate by Bob Dole to replace the current welfare system with a fundamentally new approach. That approach rests on several key ideas. First, we want to give the states the flexibility to manage their own programs. The states have been successful in developing new programs that put able bodied people to work. Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, for example, has worked closely with his legislature and put in place a very different welfare program that is working by emphasizing work. The welfare roles in Wisconsin have been cut by 27 percent with a monthly savings of 17 and a half million dollars. Those are the kinds of results we can expect with greater flexibility at the state level. Secondly, our approach gets local administrators and case workers to concentrate on moving the welfare caseload off welfare and into the workforce. Most importantly, by stressing employment, it gets able bodied welfare recipients to support themselves and their families. Our plan requires welfare recipients to be working after two years and it limits the duration of eligibility for benefits. Last week, Democrats in the Senate finally introduced their welfare bill. That bill not only keeps welfare as a federal entitlement, but expands the range of benefits. Furthermore, it flatly ignores pleas from the Nation's Governors to give them more flexibility in designing and managing their own welfare-to-work programs. To continue believing that Washington ``can do it better'' is to ignore the experience of the past sixty years. The real tragedy with the current system is the effect it is having on children. In Los Angeles, 62 percent of the children are on welfare. In Chicago, 43 percent of the children are on welfare. In Detroit, the rate is 73 percent. Clearly, we have a system that is not working, and it is even making matters worse. Today, too many welfare recipients have a greater incentive to remain on welfare than to work. We must change the incentives and break the cycle of dependency. Most who are living under these conditions want a much different life for themselves and their children. But there has been very little encouragement, and too many have no hope at all. We can change directions; but we must have a program that emphasizes parental support for children, the value of work, and individual responsibility. The Republican leadership plan does that. Enacting real welfare reform is one of the greatest challenges facing Congress and the Administration. Your Congressman and Senators will be back in their states during the August recess. Let them know how you feel about this issue. We believe our approach is much closer to the kind of change the American people want. Please support our effort if you agree.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Agricultural Competitiveness Act of 1995. The future of U.S. agriculture depends upon its ability to compete in the world market. This year, U.S. agricultural exports are expected to have a value of nearly $50 billion. Agricultural exports will account for more than 1 million American jobs. By carefully balancing our policy concerns with fiscal restraint, this bill should enhance our overall economic health, ensure that U.S. agriculture remains competitive, and contribute to the elimination of the deficit of the Federal Government. The Agricultural Competitiveness Act makes substantial changes in current farm programs while dramatically increasing flexibility for farmers. This bill extends and seeks to improve farm policy including the marketing loan, which has allowed U.S. agriculture to remain competitive in the face of heavily subsidized foreign competition. Those foreign subsidies can be expected to continue under terms of the GATT Uruguay Round. This legislation also make significant changes in commodity programs that will ensure the American public of a continued source of affordable, safe and high quality food and fiber. Farmers will have greatly expanded cropping flexibility--through the modification and expansion of provisions first incorporated in the 1990 Farm Bill. Farmers and agriculture related businesses face new and complex uncertainties in the international marketplace, due in part to foreign government subsidies. To ensure fair play and to counteract the effect of unfair trade practices and governmental actions that put our farmers and national interests at a disadvantage, the U.S. Government must continue to play a partnership role with U.S. farmers. Senators should appreciate that previous reforms have caused Commodity Credit Corporation outlays for farm programs to decline from a high of $26 billion in fiscal year 1986 to less than $9 billion in fiscal year 1995, a reduction of 65 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, farm program outlays are projected to remain below this level for the next 7 years, even if no changes are made in current law. In considering changes in farm policies, Congress must consider: the high level of productivity that currently exists in U.S. agriculture, the narrowing profit margins faced by farmers and processors, the precarious nature of land values, the interdependence of rural economies and agriculture and the absolute necessity that a farm must secure financing to stay in business. The bill expands cropping flexibility from 25 percent to 100 percent. It allows farmers to respond to market conditions and grow virtually any crop they choose on their farms--without providing unnecessary financial incentives for production shifts. This bill [[Page S 12244]] goes beyond traditional flexibility. Farmers will have the opportunity to expand their production of program crops beyond their historical planting area through the use of traditional soybean acres. This innovative proposal not only will enhance market responsiveness, but will help farmers implement crop rotations, yielding conservation and other environmental benefits. Modified acreage reduction requirements included in this Act will also enhance crop rotation by removing disincentives currently limiting double-cropping. This legislation requires that agriculture will again contribute its share of the savings necessary to achieve a balanced budget through modifications of existing programs, and it increases non-paid base program crop acres from 15 percent to 25 percent, significantly reducing outlays over the next 7 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The peanut program is substantially revised. It further opens the program to new producers and more closely ties production limits to market demand. The sugar program is also reformed to allow U.S. sugar policy to continue to operate at ``no cost'' to the U.S. sugar policy to continue to operate at ``no cost'' to the U.S. Treasury. In order to meet the new minimum import obligations require by the GATT and remain no cost, a system requiring private industry to equitably carry surplus stocks is proposed which is more market oriented and more reliable than current policy. The Agricultural Competitiveness Act of 1995 represents cost effective and comprehensive reform. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record. There being on objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my remarks are going to be directed to the issue of taking the funds that are appropriated in this bill for the LHD-7 and transferring them to the account suggested by the Senator from New Mexico. The Senate should understand that the funds in this bill for this ship have [[Page S 12143]] been authorized by the bill as reported from the Senate Armed Services Committee. They have also been funded fully in this bill. And the reason is simple. It is to try to save about $700 million in the costs of our shipbuilding program. Right now, the Navy has a contract, an agreement to construct this ship. If it does not fund and complete the construction of this ship, it is going to cost, according to the Secretary of the Navy in a memorandum he sent to the Secretary of Defense the other day, the sum of $415 million in constant-year dollars. This is a cost-effective provision in this bill. According to Admiral Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations; General Mundy, then Commandant of the Marine Corps when he testified before our committee; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Navy--this is a ship the Navy wants, the Navy needs, in order to fill out the 12 amphibious battle groups that rely upon this ship as its centerpiece. This is the amphibious ready group that is called upon in case of serious problems that may break out anywhere in the world. They are the ones that are called on to provide the quick--quick response. Senators will remember, last May, for example, it was the U.S.S. Kearsarge, LHD-4, that provided the force that launched the mission to rescue Capt. Scott O'Grady after his F-16 had been shot down over Bosnia. In Haiti, last August there was the U.S.S. Inchon that led an amphibious ready group to that area just a matter of a couple of weeks, 2 weeks, after coming back from spending 6 months off Bosnia and then Somalia. It was an amphibious ready group that stood off the coast of Somalia, that guaranteed the safe withdrawal of U.N. forces from Somalia. There is no doubt about it, according to the testimony from senior military and Navy officials, the LHD-7 is an essential part of our fleet, and it ought to be constructed as soon as possible. The additional funds that are provided in this bill are sufficient to fund the construction of this ship. The budget did not request it for this year because of the fact that the budget simply did not have the funds that were then provided in the budget resolution that passed the Congress, that was approved by the Congress. So it makes sense to use these funds. It saves the Government substantial sums. The ship is needed, according to everybody's testimony, to sustain the ability of our country to provide the forward presence and the war-fighting capability that we need. I urge the Senate to reject this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from John Dalton, dated August 2, 1995.

Mr. COCHRAN. Can I make a couple points?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I simply want to point out, as the managers have already so capably done, that these provisions are included after a review by the committee and a decision by the committee that the allocations of the funds were justified. I suggested that we approve the provision relating to the Eau Claire, WI, site where environmental remediation is obviously needed, and has been agreed to by the Army in a previous written agreement that goes back to 1988. The fact is that that agreement has not been kept on the part of the U.S. Army. So the funds are available in this bill for that purpose, and the committee report spells out that they are, much like the committee report did in 1993, where it concludes with this language: ``The Department of the Army has not fulfilled its commitments under this agreement.'' The Department is encouraged, and the funds are made available, to complete the obligation and keep its part of this bargain. It is a difference of agreement. I urge the Senate to go along with the recommendations of the managers of this legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Hattiesburg American newspaper in my State carried two articles earlier this week about a remarkable woman and her generous gift to students in financial need at the University of Southern Mississippi. Ms. Oseola McCarty, who was born on March 7, 1908, in Mississippi, and saved the money she earned from washing and ironing clothes for others for over 60 years, has decided that the bulk of her estate, $150,000, should be given to the University for scholarship assistance to African-American students. The story was aired on NBC Nightly News by Tom Brokaw. The President of the University, Dr. Aubrey K. Lucas, said, ``I don't know that I have ever been as touched by a gift to the University as I am by this one.'' Ms. McCarty said, ``I just want the scholarship to go to some child who needs it, to whoever is not able to help their children.'' Mr. President, as we struggle here to rewrite the welfare laws, we can learn, with humility, and deep respect for Ms. Oseola McCarty, that our country would benefit greatly from her example of hard work, frugality, and concern for the needs of others. I ask unanimous consent that the two articles from the Hattiesburg American be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his willingness to take another look at this matter, and I know that with his leadership we will see a favorable resolution of the issue in the final conference agreement. title information system pilot project

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that our bill may have the effect of reducing air traffic controller pay by as much as 2.5 percent. I am also advised that this action could impose additional burdens on our air traffic control system at a time when air traffic is undergoing rapid growth. Therefore, I hope the chairman will provide some assurance that these issues will be carefully examined and reconsidered prior to conference with the House.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Defense authorization bill now before the Senate contains the following provision: ``(1) * * * the Secretary of Defense should develop a program to ensure that covered beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicare * * * and who reside in a region in which the TRICARE program has been implemented have adequate access to health care services after the implementation of the TRICARE program in that region; and ``(2) to support strongly, as a means of ensuring such access, the reimbursement of the Department of Defense by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for health care services provided such beneficiaries at the medical treatment facilities of the Department of Defense.'' Our military retirees are entitled to the medical benefits which they have been promised. When the TRICARE system is fully implemented, Medicare-eligible military retirees can receive care in military hospitals only on a space available basis. Consequently, these retirees are being put at the back of the line and in some cases must change health care providers after years of care in military treatment facilities. I am very concerned about this. There must be an alternative to the current situation. Medicare funds should be transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Defense, so Medicare-eligible retirees will be able to use military health care facilities, with the costs covered by their Medicare benefits. I urge the approval of this legislation. civilian manpower and airlift operations

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am sending a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to all Senators with information concerning S. 878, a bill I introduced to amend the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992. Specifically, the legislation suspends the so-called reachback tax. My letter responds to issues raised about this legislation by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller. I hope this information will be helpful to all Senators in considering the merits of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that my letter and the enclosed fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we finally have, as the distinguished Senator from Tennessee said, the opportunity to legislate an end to the unnecessarily costly consequences of Federal Government regulations. This legislation that has been introduced by the Majority Leader, which I am cosponsoring, will make it necessary to consider the cost effectiveness of regulations that seek to manage the risks to health, safety, and our environment. In short, it will help ensure that the benefits derived from Federal regulatory actions justify their cost. The Federal regulatory burden has become too heavy and too expensive. There are several recent studies that confirm this. One is a March 1995 publication of the Harvard School of Public Health which analyzed 200 Federal programs and revealed that many highly cost-effective programs were not fully implemented, while other highly cost-ineffective programs were widely implemented. It suggested that a reallocation of resources to more cost-effective programs could save an additional 60,000 lives per year at no increased cost to taxpayers or to the private sector. The conclusion was that we could save the same number of lives, but with a $31 billion annual savings to the American people. In an American Enterprise Institute policy paper, Christopher DeMuth has described Federal regulations this way, and I quote: They are much more costly than all the domestic discretionary spending programs of the Federal Government combined. Regulatory agencies can tax and spend freely in pursuit of environmental quality, product safety, and other regulatory goals, and the costs they impose are free of the budget and appropriations controls that constrain spending programs. That is the end of the quote. The Heritage Foundation's ``A Citizens Guide to Federal Regulation'' estimates that the cost of Federal regulation to the economy exceeds $500 billion, or about $5,000 per household each year. EPA has estimated that environmental regulations alone in 1990 cost the U.S. economy about $115 billion. As a result of the Clean Air Act amendments and other new requirements, spending by business on environmental protection is expected to exceed $200 billion annually within 5 years. In 1993, the President's National Performance Review estimated that complying with Federal regulations cost the private sector $430 billion per year. This is almost 10 percent of the gross national product. One of the more frequently cited economists on the costs of regulation, Thomas Hopkins of the Rochester Institute, has estimated the direct Federal regulatory burden for 1994 to be approximately $630 billion. So whatever estimate you choose, it is a big one. The burden is enormous and, without action on our part, it is only going to get bigger. One sector of our economy that has come under special pressure from environmental and related Federal regulations is American agriculture. Excessive regulation of agriculture has become in some instances counterproductive to our efforts to maintain the safety and integrity of the U.S. food supply. Some Federal regulations not only impose unnecessary and burdensome costs on farmers, but they make our farm and food products less competitive in world markets. The Delaney clause, for example, enacted in 1958, [[Page S 10127]] has been strictly interpreted and enforced in such a way that it has imposed enormous expenses and burdens while providing very little benefit to the public. In many instances, the Delaney clause has become an obstacle to the implementation of sensible food safety policy because it has prohibited the use of production efficiencies that pose little or no risk to the public. This problem was compounded by the 1992 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which invalidated the EPA's negligible risk interpretation of the Delaney clause and required a zero risk interpretation that threatens to restrict the use of up to 80 widely used crop protection tools. These tools are important in the production of a safer, abundant, and affordable U.S. food supply. EPA Administrator Carol Browner has acknowledged that the pesticides affected by this recent court decision pose no risk to public health. Lynn Goldman, Assistant Administrator of the EPA, has admitted that the Delaney clause is an outdated approach for protecting consumers from pesticide residues and that the loss of selected pesticide uses may affect the price or seasonal availability of particular commodities. Furthermore, in 1993, the EPA stated that the potential economic impact of a strict interpretation of the Delaney clause could reach $1 billion per year. In rice-producing States, like my State of Mississippi, uncontrolled rice plant diseases can lower crop yields by 75 to 80 percent. The fungicide benomyl, which is used to control rice blast on 15 to 30 percent of the rice acres in the southeastern States, is the only fungicide registered for that purpose. Under a strict interpretation of the Delaney clause, EPA intends to prohibit the use of benomyl on rice. This will result in higher costs to farmers and consumers and will provide no real improvement in food safety. Mr. President, the outdated Delaney clause rests on a flawed premise. It assumes that a carcinogen at any level of exposure can cause cancer. Because of recent advances in research, we know that premise is wrong. With current technologies that allow the detection of minute quantities of potential carcinogens that were previously undetectable, the number of substances subject to the Delaney clause expands with every advance in analytical chemistry. We are now able to discover in food previously undetectable trace levels of materials used in production and distribution that are not added to food in any conventional sense, yet are food additives under the law. Reform of the Delaney clause, as provided for in this legislation, is essential to preserving a safe, abundant, and affordable U.S. food supply. And it is long overdue. Numerous other excessive and costly regulatory burdens imposed on American agriculture will also be relieved by this legislation. In a recent Washington Times op-ed article, I described several examples where the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, and other Federal agencies have gone beyond the intent of Congress in the regulatory requirements imposed on agriculture. The Farm Bureau Federation estimates that U.S. agricultural interests spend between $18 and $20 billion per year complying with Federal regulations. This amounts to roughly 35 percent of total net farm income in our country. The Delaney clause, and all the other Federal regulations, that are squeezing the American farmer and food industries must be subjected to a reasonable, fair, and sound science-based assessment of the real risks to safety, health and the environment. While such reform will help the entire economy, it will help U.S. agriculture in particular, and it will reduce costs to consumers without endangering their health or our environment. Mr. President, the American people want reasonable reform of the current regulatory system. This legislation provides such reform, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I also ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that the op-ed article I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his comments. I certainly agree with him. I recall in my early days in the Congress. I served in the other body, and I was assigned to the Public Works and Transportation Committee. I served on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. I had some good experience in working with Senators, like Senator Chafee, and other members of committee over here on this side of the Capitol. This is important work. I think it is work that has been well done, and I commend all Senators who have had an active role in the development of the bill and the managing of it on the floor of the Senate. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me commend the managers of the bill for the good work they have done in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is an important contribution to the infrastructure of this country for the Congress to take action on this bill in a timely fashion so States and localities who depend upon these allocations of funds can make plans to do it in a systematic way and to carry forward some of the important road and bridge projects that would be funded in this legislation. I know in our State of Mississippi hardly a bill is passed by the Congress that is more important to the continued economic progress and development of our State than this legislation that is before the Senate today. I know that there is also a continuation of a study called corridor 18. That may very well provide a new major corridor and interstate type highway which could go through Mississippi, and it may very well, I am sure, traverse many States in the central part of the country, from Ohio down to Houston, TX, and maybe beyond. There are many communities along this potential corridor that would benefit substantially in an economic way from the opportunities to grow and develop, providing jobs, producing economic activity and business activity along the way. We hope that study can be successfully completed, and the feasibility of it established so that in a timely way we can see the ultimate construction of that. There are other parts of the bill in which we are interested as well. It was brought to the attention of the manager that there is some language that we would like to see included in a managers' amendment at the appropriate point to permit our State to have access to a visitors center just south of the Tennessee line. This was something that was provided for in the 1994 appropriations bill but has not yet been finally resolved. We hope that this bill can include some language that would help that situation be resolved in a satisfactory way. But all in all, this is a good bill. It is an important bill. It is a restrained bill. The Senators have been encouraged not to get involved in new demonstration type projects in the bill. I know we cooperated in that. We want the managers to know that we appreciate the way that they have maintained discipline in this process and have shown that restraint.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding it would be in order for comments to be made about the bill, not necessarily about the amendment that is pending. Is that correct, as a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will withhold just for a comment or two about the bill?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. If there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Santorum.