Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for just a brief time? I do not want to encroach on Senator McConnell's right to speak at this time, but will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, there have been two important events relating to missile defense programs that occurred last week, which I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate. First is the successful test last Friday night of our Nation's long- range missile defense system. This was the fourth successful test against an intercontinental ballistic missile and it was much more complicated than earlier tests have been, in that the target warhead was accompanied by three decoys. Despite the presence of these countermeasures, the interceptor was able to destroy the ICBM warhead. The target warhead was launched on a missile from California, nearly 5,000 miles from the interceptor. The target warhead itself was a cone about 4 feet high and 2 feet wide at its base. The decoys were about the same size. Sensors were able to track these objects along their flightpath and give their location to a battle management system. The battle management system computed an intercept point and launched the interceptor. The interceptor missile received information about the target's position and characteristics, and while it was still several hundred miles from the target warhead, the kill vehicle separated from its booster rocket, its infrared sensors then detected the target, and its guidance system fired small rocket motors to guide the vehicle into a collision with the warhead. The target was destroyed by the force of this collision. All of this took place in just a few minutes in outer space, at closing speeds in excess of 20,000 miles an hour. This impressive event cannot be considered routine, but it is becoming regular. The regularity with which our missile defense testing is succeeding is very encouraging. Although slowed down by uncertain funding and ABM Treaty restrictions in the past, the missile defense program is now showing the benefits of the support provided by Congress over the past few years and of the new seriousness with which President Bush has attacked this problem. There is still much technical work to be done, and problems are bound to occur, as they do in all weapons programs. But the continued testing success of our ground-based missile defense system--as well as in other missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3 and the sea-based midcourse system--suggests that we are steadily making progress and moving toward the time when we will no longer be defenseless against ballistic missile attack. The other event I want to mention in this context was last week's testimony before our Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security by Mr. Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs at the CIA. Mr. Walpole testified on an unclassified CIA report published last December entitled ``Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015.'' Compared with the 1999 version of this report, Mr. Walpole said the missile threat to the United States had increased in significant ways. He also said specifically, where it was previously judged that the United States would probably face an intercontinental ballistic missile threat from Iran by 2015, it is now said by our intelligence community to be most likely the same level of threat assigned to North Korea. And North Korea's Taepo Dong-2 missile, which previously was assessed at having a range of up to 6,000 kilometers, is now judged to have a range of 10,000 kilometers if configured with two rocket stages, and 15,000 kilometers if it is equipped with a third stage, as was its predecessor. A 15,000 kilometer range is sufficient, according to Mr. Walpole, to reach all of North America with a payload large enough to carry a nuclear weapon. The report notes that the proliferation of missile technology also has become worse. The witness said Iran was now assuming a more significant role as a supplier of this technology to other nations. Finally, Mr. Walpole noted that the United States needs to be vigilant against both terrorism and long-range missile threats, saying: We've got to cover both threats. As we fight a war against terrorism, we cannot lose sight of the fact that other threats are just as serious. The CIA's report on the missile threat is a timely reminder of that, and last Friday's successful missile defense test is an encouraging sign that we are making progress in preparing to answer that threat.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to complete action on this farm bill. While the bill has some positive and helpful provisions, particularly with respect to conservation, rural development, research, and nutrition, I plan to vote against the bill. One of the primary objectives of farm legislation should be to improve the predictability and effectiveness of the financial safety net available to farmers. However, the payment limitation amendment that was adopted by the Senate will reduce the level of price support and shred the safety-net that our farmers need. According to the Congressional Research Service, cotton farmers would be able to receive benefits on approximately 880 acres, and rice farmers would be able to receive benefits on about 490 acres. Any additional acreage planted to these commodities would not be eligible for any government assistance. Since 1985, the marketing loan program has been the centerpiece of our Nation's farm policy. The marketing loan program provides reliable and predictable income support for farmers while allowing U.S. commodities to be competitive in the global market. This legislation will make the marketing loan program completely useless. Considering the bleak forecast for the farm economy, it does not stand to reason that Congress should pass legislation that imposes new rules and regulations which will restrict government assistance so drastically. I hope we can resolve the differences we have over this bill in conference with the House and bring back a truly beneficial farm bill. I pledge my best efforts to achieve that result. Preservation of Land for John Ogonowski

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is working to pass a farm bill. We need to complete action on this bill as soon as possible to send a signal that we could have a new farm bill implemented for the 2002 crop-year. One of the primary objectives of new farm legislation should be to improve the predictability and effectiveness of the financial safety net available to farmers and to eliminate the need for annual emergency assistance. Unfortunately, the payment limitation amendment that we are debating now will have the opposite effect. If this amendment is adopted, it will be a very serious and unfair-- even punitive--act that will be catastrophic for southern agricultural interests. The costs of production of cotton and rice are much higher than corn or soybeans. According to agricultural economics analysts at Mississippi State University, the cost of producing 1 acre of cotton is approximately $550, while the cost of producing 1 acre of corn is about $350, and for soybeans it is only about $100 per acre. On a 1,000-acre cotton farm, the production costs would be $200,000 a year higher than for corn, and $450,000 higher than for soybeans. This amendment clearly would be unfair to farmers who produce high-cost crops such as cotton and rice. Since 1985, the marketing loan program has been the centerpiece of our Nation's farm policy. It provides reliable and predictable income support for farmers while allowing U.S. commodities to be competitive in the global market. If this amendment is adopted, the marketing loan program will be undermined and essentially will become useless. It is expected by the prognosticators that farm commodity prices will remain low and net farm income will be $8 billion less this year than last year. Considering this bleak forecast for our farm economy, it does not stand to reason that Congress should impose new rules and regulations that unduly restrict Government assistance at this time of serious economic distress. Many southern farmers work larger tracts of land because the tight profit margins lead to efforts to enhance efficiency through economies of scale. And cooperative farming also helps improve efficiency for some. I heard the complaint that as much as 80 percent of the payments go to only 20 percent of the farmers. But these farmers are producing 80 percent of our Nation's farm output. If limitations on support are made more restrictive, a significant number of farmers will not be able to participate in the farm program. If this amendment is adopted, I predict the pressures for emergency assistance will build and will end up being more costly in the future. Madam President, I strongly urge the Senate to reject this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate Major Stewart H. Holmes upon the completion of his career of service in the United States Marine Corps. Throughout his 22 years military career, Major Holmes served with distinction and dedication. He joined the Marine Corps when he was 17 years of age and rose from private to major, serving in a wide variety of assignments along the way. He served as the Marine Corps Appropriations liaison to both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, and he has been a legislative fellow in my office. He has carried out his responsibilities with great ability and dedication. His parents, Wilhelmina and Jacob Holmes, and his fellow Marines can be proud of his distinguished service. Major Holmes, and his wife Deborah, have made many sacrifices during his Marine career, and we appreciate their contribution of conscientious service to our country. I am also pleased that Major Holmes will continue his work in my office as a Legislative Assistant with responsibilities for defense and military programs and issues. I look forward to having the continued benefit of his dependable counsel and assistance.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, one of the best and most respected attorneys to have ever served in our State as an assistant U.S. Attorney is retiring. James Tucker has served the U.S. Department of Justice in the Southern District of Mississippi for 30 years. I have an enormous amount of respect and appreciation for the way James Tucker has carried out the important responsibilities of his job. He was a true professional in every respect. He was completely honest and trustworthy, and he was tenacious in bringing to justice those who violated the laws of the United States. I commend him for a job well done and wish him much continued success and satisfaction in the years ahead. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Clarion Ledger of December 17, highlighting his illustrious career be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have indicated to the manager of the bill that we would be prepared to offer the amendment now and have a time agreement on the Cochran-Roberts amendment. I have suggested 2 hours evenly divided so that both sides will have ample opportunity to talk about the amendment. We have already talked about this amendment Friday morning. Senator Roberts and I were here to discuss the amendment and talked about an hour and a half at that time. That is what I would suggest we do, and that would get us moving along. This would be a major alternative to the committee-passed bill, and we think that that would be one way to start moving toward final disposition of this legislation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield without losing his right to the floor, I will respond.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his very persuasive arguments on this issue today. He is absolutely right. There is not any effort being made to be unfair or to act inappropriately toward any legitimate importing concern selling fish or any other product in the United States. What is important is that the consumers in the United States have the information so they know what they are buying. I have seen logos and advertisements stamped on these fish cartons that say ``cajun catfish.'' Immediately one assumes that it is from south Louisiana. That is a distinctive name. It means something to the consumer in the southern part of the United States. That fish is basa fish from Vietnam. It does not say so on the package. Another package said ``delta catfish.'' You immediately assume you are talking about the Mississippi Delta from where 50 percent of the aquaculture in the United States comes. But, no, that is the Mekong Delta that is being referred to in that package. It is misleading. It is unfair. It is unfair to those who have spent $50 million over time to develop a market for Lower Mississippi River Valley pond-raised catfish. That is how much has been invested over a period of years. Now it has become a food of choice for many Americans. They go into the supermarket and now they buy what they see is delta catfish. But it is not what they think it is. That is unfair to them. That is what this amendment seeks to correct. It simply says the Food and Drug Administration ought to ensure that these fish are labeled so consumers know what they are. We have it from the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center that this basa fish is not of the same family. It is not of the same species as is the delta pond-raised catfish.

Mr. COCHRAN. We have not run out of gas.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator for that purpose.

Mr. COCHRAN. I reserve the remainder of our time on this side.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes. In response to the Senator, the amendment is at the desk, and it has been there. It is the one we discussed Friday. There were no changes since that time, to my knowledge.

Mr. COCHRAN. Why don't we start debate on the McCain amendment, as the Senator suggested? He will agree to any time agreement. It is just a matter of how many people want to talk in opposition to it. And we can get unanimous consent that following disposition of the McCain amendment we proceed to consideration of the Cochran-Roberts amendment, with 2 hours of debate evenly divided.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments and his leadership on this issue. We have some time left. Does the senior Senator from Montana wish to speak at this time or will we reserve the time?

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his comments. His leadership in the areas of trade and agriculture have been very helpful in the Senate over the years as we have been called upon to legislate in this subject area. I am grateful to him for his complements to this legislation as they relate to our obligations in the World Trade Organization and likewise in the importance and support from the Government for those engaged in production agriculture. This legislation attempts to preserve the best of current farm law, improve programs that have proven to work in the areas of conservation and income protection. The Marketing Loan Program, which has been a centerpiece of our agricultural programs in the last two farm bills, is carried forward in this legislation. We have a predictable level of income support that is not coupled to planting decisions by farmers. This leaves them with the freedom to make planting decisions not based on what the Government will pay them for doing or not doing but on the basis of what they think is best for their farm and their individual circumstances. Their freedom in this farm bill to make those planting decisions will be very popular with farmers and for those who will depend on this legislation in the years ahead. That is one of the distinguishing characteristics between the Cochran-Roberts approach and the committee bill that is pending before the Senate. The committee bill depends upon high loan rates guaranteed to distort the market to encourage overproduction. That is not going to be the result under the Cochran-Roberts amendment. The Cochran-Roberts amendment provides, as the Senator from Iowa points out, for a new way to encourage farmers to save. It provides a matching formula for the Government to come in and help encourage the savings by farmers, much as a 401-K program does for others engaged in business in our country. Farmers will be able to use their funds to deal with the countercyclical price distortion if prices go down as they customarily do. There are good years and bad years. We all know that. This will offer an opportunity to hedge against those bad years. There is a substantial emphasis in this legislation on conservation. Two billion dollars in additional funding is authorized in this amendment for conservation programs and to provide technical assistance to farmers to help them make decisions that are consistent with good management practices to protect soil and water resources. There are also reauthorization provisions for the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, all of which have helped assure that those gradual and marginal lands are not farmed. The encouragement of benefits from the Government for making decisions not to plant on marginal lands will be carried forward and expanded in this legislation. I am hopeful that the Senate will look with favor at the difference between this bill and the committee bill in the area of rural development. The rural development title of the committee bill mandates that certain levels of spending be made on a lot of new programs that are authorized and funded in this legislation. Our approach is to authorize a wide range of rural development programs, rural water and sewer system programs, other infrastructure programs, and housing programs that will help those who live in small towns and rural communities enjoy the full benefits that those who live in more urban areas would enjoy. It costs more in many of these areas to provide those kinds of services. So the Federal Government is authorized to provide funding to help ensure that the quality of life for those in rural America is enhanced. But the programs are not mandated at certain high levels. The program managers in the Department of Agriculture and Department of Agriculture officials are given more latitude. The Congress is given more flexibility in appropriating each year the levels of funding that should be made available to those specific programs, rather than mandating certain high levels. This gives us budget flexibility. We know we are entering an era now where we are going to be hard pressed to stay within our budgets. This is important in this area of legislation as well. We are not on a certain path towards deficit spending, but I am afraid if we follow the course that is outlined in the committee bill, that will be the result. There are others who want to speak on this legislation. We have a time limitation of 1 hour per side. Let me at this point say that the distinguished Senator from Kansas, who is the cosponsor of this amendment, is due in large part the credit for coming up with the strategy for this amendment and a lot of the content for this amendment. He was chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House of Representatives before he came to the Senate. He has long been a leader in agriculture in America. I respect his judgment. It has been a pleasure working with him in crafting this amendment. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, because the distinguished Senator from Iowa is involved in a very important discussion on the economic stimulus bill, as a high ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, he is supposed to be in a meeting discussing that right now. He is interested in this legislation, and I yield such time as he may consume to comment on the Cochran-Roberts amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the No Child Left Behind Act provides the authorization for Federal assistance to States for the education of the children of our Nation. I support this conference report, and I am pleased with the emphasis on flexibility it permits for State and local educators. I appreciate very much the courtesies shown to me during the consideration of this bill by the chairman, Mr. Kennedy, and ranking member, Mr. Gregg, of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The conference report includes several programs which are of particular interest to me, and were the subject of an amendment I offered and was accepted by the Senate during our initial consideration of H.R. 1. The National Writing Project is one such program. This provides teacher training in the effective teaching of writing at 164 sites located in 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It has been a Federal program for 10 years, and is the only Federal assistance program aimed at writing. Another area of interest is targeted to young children before they begin school, and helps ensure they are ready to learn when they arrive at school. The public television program, Ready to Learn, was launched in 1994, and was initially authorized by legislation authored by the chairman and myself. The essence of Ready to Learn is a full day of non-violent, commercial-free, educational children's television programming broadcast free of charge to every American household. This daily broadcast includes some of the most popular, award-winning and engaging programming available today such as Arthur, Clifford, and Reading Between the Lions. Other programs that have proved to be of great assistance to local school districts which are included provide grants for arts, civics, and foreign language education. These grants enable schools to provide enhanced, competitive education opportunities to students in all parts of the country. I am especially pleased with the opportunities authorized in reading instruction and assessment. The bill provides incentives to schools to seek out programs with research based and proven methods as described by the National Reading Panel. Also authorized is funding for the National Board of Teaching Standards, which is responsible for providing a voluntary assessment base for teachers in all disciplines. This is a very sought after resource for professional development as well as assessment. The teachers in my State, for example, are given financial incentive to seek the certification of the board. Teachers report that the process for the certification makes them better and happier teachers. These are a few of the programs in which I've been personally involved throughout the consideration of the No Child Left Behind Act. I am very hopeful that the new education authorizations and the reauthorization of effective education programs will bring better learning opportunities to all of America's students. Mr. NELSON OF Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to announce my opposition to this conference report. During my campaign for the Senate last year I promised the people of Nebraska that if George W. Bush occupied the White House, I would support him when I believed he was right, and oppose him when I thought he was wrong. In my first year in the Senate, I have worked with the Bush administration to negotiate a tax cut, craft a compromise on a Patient's Bill of Rights, and, recently, negotiate an economic stimulus package. I have kept my promise to work with President Bush when he is right, and now I must keep my promise to oppose him when he is wrong. As Governor of Nebraska, I repeatedly protested the Federal Government's practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on the States, requiring the States to do something without providing the adequate funding for them to do it. The President's plan will impose a massive unfunded mandate on Nebraska in the form of annual testing, and it fails to provide relief from a previous mandate imposed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Because of these mandates, I do not believe that the President's plan will improve education in Nebraska and I am deeply concerned that it may likely cause greater financial harm. The lack of IDEA funding is the bill's biggest failure, and my primary reason for opposing it. When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, it promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of educating children with special needs. Since then, it has never contributed more than 15 percent of the funding for special education, with the States left to cover the shortfall, placing a greater strain on local property taxes. When the Senate originally passed this bill in June, it included an amendment by Senators Harkin and Hagel to finally require the Federal Government to pay its 40 percent share of the costs of special education. Unfortunately, the final version does not include the Harkin-Hagel plan, depriving the State of Nebraska more than $300 million over the next 5 years. The failure to fully fund IDEA short changes not only the services provided to students with disabilities, but all students by forcing reductions in other State and local education programs. The bill will also impose costly, burdensome, and, some would argue, duplicative annual testing requirements on Nebraska's schools. The President has said that these tests will provide accountability for schools that fail to properly educate their students, but Nebraska schools are already holding themselves accountable. We have a rigorous program of standards and assessments in place and our students consistently rank among the best in the Nation. Local schools and community leaders have worked hard with the State Department of Education to put this system in place and we know it is working. The State of Nebraska has no reservations about being held accountable for educating its students. But I believe the people of Nebraska have every right to demand accountability from the Federal Government and I do not believe they are getting it with this bill. This legislation will require Nebraska to develop and administer a dozen additional tests each year to be in compliance but it does not provide adequate funding to do so. Across the Nation, fewer than a third of the States have assessments in place that will satisfy the requirements of this bill. But States are already spending in excess of the $400 million provided by the bill on their assessment programs, before you factor in the new tests. We know from the outset that this is going to cost States a considerable amount of money at a time when taxpayer dollars are already scarce. That is not my idea of accountability. Combined with the failure to fully fund IDEA this marks a retreat from accountability. The National Governors Association recently announced that collectively the States will report a $35 billion deficit this year. In 2001, the State of Nebraska suffered a $220 million budget shortfall. To make up for the shortfall caused by these unfunded mandates, local governments will have to dramatically cut education spending, or significantly increase property taxes. As a former Governor who has had to deal with the challenges of balancing State budgets, neither of these options is acceptable in my estimation. This will be a difficult vote for me. The President and most of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican support this legislation. I know that my colleagues have worked very hard to reach this agreement and I appreciate their hard work. There are some victories to celebrate. The bill provides a significant increase in overall funding, better targeting of title I resources, greater flexibility, some additional funding for rural schools, and mentoring legislation that I worked on with Congressman Osborne. But on balance, I do not believe that these ultimately outweigh the financial problems that the plan will create within local schools and the State budget, and accordingly, I must vote no on this bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.