Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Kansas in offering a substitute, an alternative, to the Daschle proposal for agriculture legislation. It is important we recognize we are involved in a process that does naturally and routinely, whenever Congress addresses farm legislation, take a considerable amount of time. At the outset, I am disturbed by hearing news conferences are called for the purposes of highlighting how Republicans are obstructing or slowing down the consideration of this farm bill and are putting in jeopardy the passage of a farm bill before this session of Congress adjourns. That is totally unfair and unjustified. If we look over the history of farm bill consideration, the 1996 farm bill, for example, under which we are now operating, there were over 300 amendments considered to that farm bill during the consideration by the Senate. There have been only a handful of amendments considered so far during this farm bill debate. They have all been germane amendments, all conscience efforts to improve the bill or change it in a way that will help provide more support that is needed by farmers in this perilous economic situation we are in, or in other ways changes farm policy the Senate has a right to consider. There are going to be amendments. I do not know how many amendments are now pending. I am told there are over 30, according to our count last night. The point is, this is a serious issue. It has huge ramifications, not only for those involved in agricultural production but also for American consumers and the agricultural economy worldwide. So it is not a subject that ought to be flippantly or quickly rammed through the Senate under the pressures of the last closing days of the session. If this was thought to be an appropriate time to bring up a farm bill by the Democratic leadership, under the obvious constraints of the time we have available, why did they wait so long? Why did they wait until the last few weeks of a session of Congress to bring up a bill such as this? The House passed a bill much earlier in the year, even though at the time many of us thought it was not necessary to pass a bill that early. The legislation we are under now does not expire until next September. Farmers are worried, and justly so, that because of declining balances in the Federal Treasury, more pressure on the budget to wage a war against terrorism, to deal with the realities we have to confront on that subject, it may be more difficult to get the level of financial support for production agriculture than we may be able to get if we could act during this year. So that is really one of the reasons. Another reason is so there can be a predictable level of support committed by the Federal Government to production agriculture, those who are involved in planting the crops, those who are involved in financing the planting of the crops, a level of certainty and predictability so they can make plans for this next crop-year. So that is a legitimate concern as well. So we are trying to accommodate those concerns and interests, but it is very difficult. The pressures are tremendous to get this done and to get it done quickly and get it to the President so it can be signed and enacted into law. That brings into question, which process or which proposal, which alternative, will likely serve that goal? I suggest it is the Cochran- Roberts bill and not the Daschle substitute. The Daschle substitute has an enormously high level of loan rates in it. That is one of the big problems because that is not going to become law. That is just not going to happen. That is pie in the sky. It is not a realistic expectation, under the circumstances we have today, for a new farm policy to be enacted quickly without people understanding all the ramifications. It is such a dramatic departure from current law, past policies, and the impact it is going to have on commodity prices, the production levels of commodities will distort the world market to such an extent it is unacceptable. That is the big problem. There are other problems with this bill as well. There are huge numbers of new mandatory spending programs contained in this Daschle bill. In the rural development section of the bill, which we considered in our committee, there are numerous new mandatory spending programs. What is that? These are programs where the spending of the money is directed by law at prescribed levels for certain activities in rural development. Those programs that have been authorized in the past authorized funding levels, and the appropriations process then analyzes the availability of funds, tries to deal with the allocation of resources in a fair and justifiable way, after hearings and consideration of what the needs are each year, so annually we make a decision as to how much money is to be spent. This bill is going to predict and mandate over 5 years how much money has to be spent for each of those rural development programs. That is new. That is a dramatic change. That is really not good policy. The Senate had not heard about that, had not talked about it, but that is in this bill. That is in the Daschle substitute. I complained about it during the markup. We received the markup papers in the middle of the night before we marked up at 9 a.m. This is another part of this rush to legislate. The committee did not take time to have hearings, to consider carefully the options for a new farm as did the House. The House had hundreds of days of consideration prior to the beginning of the markup of the House bill. They had hearings all over the country, hearings in Washington. Our committee had some hearings. There was a transition that made some difference. In March, the party majority switched in the Senate and the new leadership of our committee had the responsibility of taking over abruptly. That made it a little more difficult. There was a startup problem. We have had the anthrax business in the Senate. Senators have been displaced from their offices. Staff members have been displaced from their offices. There have been problems. There have been challenges to the ability of the Senate to work quickly to respond to the legitimate needs we have for appropriations legislation and other legislation. That is the reality of the situation. There are amendments that I may offer on the rural development side. In fact, the Cochran-Roberts bill changes these mandatory spending programs into authorized spending programs so we can annually make decisions about the level of funding available and justified. Instead of being able to project a long period into the future of budget surpluses, which was the case, we are confronting a new reality. We are not going to have as much money in surplus in the Federal budget as we expected. That may affect the funding levels realistically available for some of these rural development programs. All of them sound good, but we have to view them in the context of budget realities and legitimate needs and how effectively these funds will be used to try to address the problems they are designed to solve. One other aspect of difference between the Cochran and Roberts bill and the Daschle substitute is the conservation title. We have a very strong conservation title in our bill. The commodity title is different, as well, not only in the loan rates I mentioned but also in the predicted constant level of Government support made available, directed to producers of agricultural commodities. Let me point out in some detail the differences in the commodity title in Cochran-Roberts compared with the Daschle substitute. Our bill maintains planting flexibility with a fixed payment throughout the 5- year life of the bill. In the last few years, Congress has provided producers with supplemental assistance because of the depressed prices and because of natural disasters which have struck many States. The combination has created disastrous situations. Congress has responded. There is no guarantee under the budget realities of today that we are going to be able to continue that level of ad hoc special emergency funding to provide those levels of support in the future. That is another reason the Cochran-Roberts bill determines in advance and sets out in clear language and numbers in the bill the amount of payments the Federal Government will make to producers of agricultural commodities. Another aspect of our bill that is different is we maintain the successful marketing loan programs with loan rates that do not distort market prices. They do not encourage overproduction and therefore have a depressing effect on market prices. A new farm savings account is authorized in this legislation. This will be money available to farmers from the Government to match their own savings they invest in order to cushion the effect of years where commodity prices are lower. There are naturally going to be ups and downs in market prices in agriculture as there are in a lot of other economic activities. This account creates a new 401(k) program for farmers. The Federal Government will match the money that the farmers put into these accounts. Another change that farmers will appreciate in this legislation we are proposing is a provision allowing them to update their base acres. A lot of farmers are convinced the system, the way it works now and the way the program is administered, penalizes them because it contains out-of-date information and is not an accurate reflection of the number of base acres that are farmed and on which the payments can be calculated under this program. This process allows farmers to be paid on a more recent production list. The conservation title I mentioned briefly. Let me point out specifics in the conservation title in Cochran-Roberts and why it is a very strong commitment to the conservation of soil and water resources in our country. There are higher levels of authorization for the programs that have proved to be successful in encouraging farmers to produce their crops in environmentally friendly ways. The centerpiece of the conservation title is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, known as EQIP. Under the current EQIP, there is an authorization level of $200 million per year, or $1.2 billion over the 6-year life of the bill. The Cochran-Roberts substitute raises that authorization by $450 million, to a level of $1.65 billion for the life of the bill. The Conservation Reserve Program is also increased from 36.4 million acres to 40 million acres. The Wetlands Reserve Program is increased to 250,000 acres annually. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program authorized at $25 million annually is increased to $100 million each year. The Cochran-Roberts substitute contains a generous level of support for conservation programs. In summary, these are the reasons why the Cochran-Roberts bill is a preferred alternative to the Daschle substitute. It is trade friendly; it is consistent with the WTO rules; loan rate levels are consistent with the House bill, which makes the bills more easily conferenced. The Daschle-Harkin approach is not going to be easily conferenced with the House. In my view, it will be impossible to conference with the House. It cannot be reconciled with the House because of that fundamental major departure. Cochran-Roberts provides a strong commitment to conservation. I mention that again because some are suggesting we are not providing enough support for conservation programs in our alternative. That is just not true. We have a farm savings account which will help counter adverse price cycles. The administration supports our bill. The President will sign a bill that is based on the principles of the Cochran-Roberts bill. Support for Cochran-Roberts will produce a bill and a new farm law, not just a campaign issue. I urge Senate support.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is absolutely correct in pointing that out. That is another mark of the strong leadership the President has provided on this issue. He has made everybody understand what the real problems were and why this treaty was outdated, why we needed to move beyond, why it was a relic of the cold war. And given the threats as they are emerging and exist today, we couldn't be safe confronting the new emerging missile capabilities from many countries all around the world.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, let me first thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for yielding time to me on this conference report. And I commend the Senator from Alabama for his excellent, persuasive statement in support of the President's actions that he announced he was taking today to give notice that under the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, the United States was withdrawing from that treaty. It took a lot of courage for the President to announce that today. It has taken a lot of insight and hard work for the Senator from Alabama to rise to the position of leadership that he has in the Senate, on not only an issue such as missile defense but on the wide range of issues that come before the Armed Services Committee on which he has served so effectively, and in a way that has reflected great credit on the Senate and on the State of Alabama. I appreciate the kind remarks he has made about my efforts on the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, to which he referred in his remarks. There were a lot of people, a lot of Senators personally and actively involved in that effort. He was one of them. He was right at the forefront of the effort to convince the Senate we needed to pass that legislation, that we needed to state it as a matter of national policy and have it in a statute that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a missile defense system that will protect the United States, the territory of the United States, and the citizens of the United States from ballistic missile attack. And that is on the books. This committee has also provided leadership in ensuring that authorities were given under this bill to the President to proceed to carry out that policy. We have, in this conference report, $8.3 billion that is authorized for use by the administration to develop, to conduct research, to test in the missile defense programs that are underway now, to achieve the goals of not only the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 but the other responsibilities that the Commander in Chief has to protect deployed forces around the world from theater missile attack. They are already in the hands of adversaries around the world--Scud missiles other advanced missile systems--that threaten American forces that are deployed around the world. We are at the point now of actually putting in the field defenses against these ballistic missiles. These are shorter range missiles. They are not ICBMs, and they do not travel as fast as ICBMs. But the Army has this program, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense. The acronym is THAAD, but it is not named for me. The point I am making about that program is that it has been proven effective. It works. The tests have been phenomenally successful. There have been a series of tests with a missile hitting a missile to defend against and knock down an attack from these missile systems that would threaten our forces in the field. Those programs have proven that the defense against missiles is possible by using interceptor missiles to knock them down. We were heartened just recently when a missile was fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base and intercepted from Kwajalein. We saw that effectively tested so that the missile hit its target, traveling at high rates of speed, way up in the atmosphere. It is phenomenal what the research scientists have been able to accomplish in this area. When President Bush was running for President, he told the American people, as Senator Sessions pointed out, that he was in favor of developing and deploying a national missile defense system. He acknowledged there was an impediment to doing that, and that impediment was a treaty the United States entered into in 1972 with the Soviet Union, saying that neither would deploy a national missile defense system, except in one case: to protect a civilian population center or to protect an offensive capability. Those are the missiles that could be launched against the other side. The United States decided to deploy an ABM system back then. And the Senate grudgingly approved it. It was in the process of being deployed, and they changed their mind and withdrew the authority for actual deployment of an ABM system that would protect our silos and missiles in the Dakotas. That is what we were going to protect. The Russians, on the other hand, decided to deploy their system that was legal under the treaty to protect Moscow. And that system is still in place. People wonder: Why would you want to deploy an ABM system. Well, Russia did. Russia deployed the system, and they still have it. It is still there. So they must think they have an effective, workable missile defense system in place. So those who wonder whether it is possible to have a system that is workable and effective, look at that example, and look at theater missile systems that we have deployed, that we are deploying, and we have tested effectively, and then the series of tests for the system that has been under development here in the United States. So what I want to do is simply point out how important the decision is to our national security interests that the President has made. By ending the participation of the United States in this obsolete agreement--the ABM Treaty--President Bush has removed one of the central obstacles to ensuring the security of our homeland. The President's actions come as no surprise. It should not surprise anyone either in the United States or our friends and allies around the world. At the beginning of his election campaign, President Bush made clear that he was determined to defend the United States from the threat of ballistic missile attack and that it was his belief that the ABM Treaty posed an unacceptable obstacle to doing this. So with this action, the President is doing what he said he would do if it was necessary. He has made every effort to explain his views and his intentions to Russian leadership and to outline his plans for our friends and other allies around the world. Since taking office, he and his senior officials have missed no opportunity to engage their Russian counterparts on the subject of missile defense. They have labored to convey the President's commitment to defending this Nation, the urgency of the threat, and the pressing need to move beyond the ABM Treaty. Over this past year, the issue has been discussed frequently at the highest levels of the United States and Russian Governments. The Government of Russia has refused to cooperate in an effort to reconcile new security needs with this outdated treaty. Therefore, the President has been given little choice but to proceed as he has. He deserves great credit not only for his determination to defend our country but for his patience in attempting to resolve this disagreement by arriving at a new mutually satisfactory arrangement with Russia. Much work remains to be done though. We have to determine which technologies are most effective, and we have to produce and deploy them. This work must be pursued with a sense of urgency. For the first time in 30 years, the United States will be able to develop and field the best technology available to protect our citizens from missile attack, instead of being artificially constrained by an outdated and counterproductive arms control agreement. America's scientists, engineers, and policymakers will finally be free to work toward a missile defense that responds to the threat, rather than fear of violating an outdated set of rules that prohibited testing of new technologies. Some have predicted the sky will fall if the United States exercises its right to withdraw from this agreement and that the relationship between the United States and Russia will suffer irreparable harm from such an action. Some surely will be renewing such claims. Some have today, and in the days ahead we will hear these remarks. But before becoming overwrought, it might be helpful to note what the President of Russia said about this during his recent visit to the United States. Asked about the conflict between the United States and Russia over the ABM Treaty, President Putin said this: Given the nature of the relationship between the United States and Russia, one can rest assured that whatever final solution is found, it will not threaten or put to threat the interests of both of our countries and of the world. On September 11, ironically, the deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, said this: I can assure you that our relations will be continuing regardless of whether the U.S. withdraws from the ABM treaty or not. [It] will not affect these relations of trust. President Bush has successfully moved us beyond the cold war. He has made it clear that he will not tolerate a relationship between our two nations whose most fundamental basis is the threat of mutual annihilation and whose currency is fear, suspicion, and mistrust. The President has said he wants a new relationship with Russia, not one marked by the deadly themes of a dangerous and bygone era. His decision to leave the ABM Treaty is a significant step in building that new relationship, and the words of President Putin make it equally clear that Russia also wants a new relationship with the United States. The debate over whether the United States should remain in the ABM Treaty is now over. As we move forward with the development and testing of missile defense programs, we should support our President and help him implement this important element of our homeland security.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a response, I appreciate very much his kind remarks about my efforts on this issue. He is absolutely correct. The effect of the ABM Treaty has been to deny the United States the legal right to test technologies, not only radars that are aboard ships, such as the Aegis fire control system radar, but also space-based elements such as sensors that could assist in making sure the system was effective, that it was workable, and that it did what we hoped it would do, and that was knock an incoming missile down before it struck the United States. Just recently, as an example, Secretary Rumsfeld announced that some tests that had been planned on this program development schedule were being canceled because to undertake the tests as planned and as needed for this system would violate the terms and the understanding we have had with Russia since the treaty was ratified, the ABM Treaty. There were demarcation agreements that were agreed to in the Clinton administration that limited the testing programs we were undertaking. All of that now is set aside. When the notice the President gives becomes effective, the notice of intent to withdraw, we will then be able to resume tests that had previously been scheduled that we couldn't undertake without violating the treaty. The President was forthright and honest about it. He wasn't trying to hide our violations or get away with something that was prohibited under the treaty. He was acknowledging that he couldn't proceed because he didn't want to violate the treaty. He didn't want to break the law. And treaties have the force and effect of law. The Senator from Virginia is absolutely correct in the effect that that treaty was having on our ability to proceed as we had authorized, as we had planned, in conformity with a policy that had been adopted by the Congress and signed by the previous President. His leadership and the efforts of Senator Levin, too, in helping to ensure that this conference report contains authorities and authorization for appropriations that will help us defend our homeland security are things for which we should all express our appreciation. I do that tonight with great thanks.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator for clarifying this issue and for his support of this project. slave labor in japan

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to clarify language included in the Commerce, Justice, State, appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. My distinguished colleague, the chairman of the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Hollings, worked with me to ensure that a very important project for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was included in the Senate version of the bill and the subsequent conference report. The Senate-passed version contained $16,300,000 for the construction of an adult and juvenile detention facility on the Choctaw Reservation. The tribe has encountered many obstacles as it has sought to satisfy both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Justice Department through compliance with their varying jurisdictions, regulations, and varied interpretations of law enforcement for Indian tribes over the past decade. These delays have resulted in a deterioration of law enforcement, and an escalation in the costs of the facility. Further delays will only exacerbate these problems. The Choctaw Tribe is firm in its view that detention is essential to the maintenance of law and order of the reservation. The detention facility the tribe currently utilizes was built by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1973 as a temporary holding facility designed to hold 18 prisoners for up to 72 hours. Today, an average of 33.4 offenders are being held daily. Because of the lack of space, only the most serious and repeat offenders are incarcerated and the tribal court has been forced to rely on ``deferred sentencing'' for less serious offenses. This has created a large backlog of convicted inmates waiting to be placed in jail. The current facility is simply inadequate to meet existing needs and the projected law enforcement needs of the tribe and its growing population. The tribe is in need of a new facility and the gentleman from South Carolina recognized this requirement and included funding for the construction of the Choctaw jail in the Senate bill. I thank the conference committee for its inclusion of language directing the Department of Justice to fund the Choctaw detention facility. I would like to clarify, however, that it was the intention of the Senate to provide $16,300,000 for the construction of the Choctaw jail facility.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, to present for the Senate's approval the conference report on H.R. 2330. This conference agreement provides total new budget authority of $75.8 billion for the programs and activities administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These include programs that provide housing opportunities for low and moderate-income residents of rural America, that protect our Nation's food supplies against pests and diseases, assure the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical products, and provide nutrition assistance for America's children and working families. This is the seventh conference report of the 13 regular fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills to be presented to the Senate this year for approval. This conference agreement has been approved by the House of Representatives by a substantial vote in that body, and Senate passage of the conference report today would be the final step necessary to send this bill to the President for his signature. I am hopeful the Senate will approve the conference report and give our committee a vote of confidence in our efforts to resolve successfully the differences that existed between the Senate and House-passed bills. We think we defended the Senate's interests aggressively, and we worked out a compromise that will serve the interests not only of the two bodies but of the American people as well. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. It is my intent that these funds be used by the Department of Labor for the expansion of funding among the network of farmworker housing grantees. It is my understanding that it is the intent of this committee that these funds be used for those grantees and that any funds for migrant rest center activities would come from other discretionary sources. Would the chairman clarify this understanding?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have a question about the migrant and seasonal Farmworker Housing Program. I have worked for a number of years to ensure that the Labor Department provide funding for housing assistance for eligible farmworkers. There is a well-established network of local housing organizations that receive these funds. I am particularly impressed by the work of the organization in my State, the Delta Housing Project. The Senate Report accompanying this bill recommends $5,000,000 for farmworker housing. This amount represents an increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level. In fiscal 2001 the committee increased the fund from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 representing the first increasee since 1982. I am pleased that the committee has recently increased the funding to this worthwhile program so that grant recipients can use these funds for important housing projects. However, despite the fact that in fiscal year 2001 the program was increased by 20 percent, most all grant recipients received less money than they have consistently relied upon for the past 17 years. This does not seem fair.

Mr. COCHRAN

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, if the distinguished Senator from Louisiana will yield, I would be happy to speak in support of her amendment and acknowledge that I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I believe that it does redirect some of the funding allocated under the bill for title I programs so that it goes to the States with the highest percentage of poor students in their student population. These are students we decided needed special attention many years ago when the program was first authorized as title I under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Federal Government has the responsibility to address that program--not by supplanting the primary responsibility of the States to run their education programs and to provide the resources for teachers and school districts to educate those students in the States. We have decided some States have such serious problems in this respect that the Federal Government ought to step in and provide some additional assistance. When the program was authorized, not all of the authorized activities were funded. This is one example of an unfunded but authorized activity and a program that was designed to help those States with very special needs. Obviously, my State is one of them. Sixty-five percent of the student population in the State of Mississippi is classified as eligible for title I support. These are poor children. Most of those children reside in small towns and rural communities; some in urban settings, of course. But most of them are in areas with high rates of unemployment and low-wage rates where people do have jobs, and with real estate that doesn't generate the kind of taxes that are needed to operate top-of-the-line education programs. They start out with the deck stacked against them because of where they live and the fact that they are poor. This is money that is now going to be targeted and redirected to those areas of special need. I think it is totally justified under the circumstances that we see in our country today, and also to be used in a program that has been tested and proven to be helpful. We had hearings in our State earlier this year talking to administrators in school districts that are eligible for title I funding; talking to teachers and meeting with the State board of education members to try to assess how effective the program has been and what would happen if the funds were cut. For example, we were told if the funding under title I was reduced in our State, the effect would be devastating. We were also told the more money they could get into the program, the better job they could do in providing educational opportunities to those who are harder to teach and who need special assistance in many cases in order to achieve their goals and to be what they could be if they were given the right kinds of educational opportunities. One of our witnesses turned out to be a school superintendent in Yazoo City, MS, who had been a title I student. He talked about his personal background and his history and the fact that there was no opportunity for him. But because of additional funds in the school that he attended that added some instructors, that added some teachers who concentrated on those students with special problems because they were poor, he benefitted from that. He talked about how he then ended up going to college. He is now a leader in our State in education, devoting his life to helping others who are in similar situations. He was a very impressive, and as you might understand, a very persuasive witness. I am here today to speak for people like him and others in our State who because of their lives and experiences show that this program works. It has been of great benefit to him. We want it to benefit many more. That is why I am cosponsoring the Landrieu amendment. I hope the Senate will vote for it.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for yielding time to me. I will take just a minute or two and suggest that this amendment that is offered by the Senator from New Hampshire has great merit because it shifts funds into a program that has historically been grossly underfunded. The title I program has about four different categories of authorized funding in it. Over the last several years only two of those programs have been funded by the Congress. I am supporting an effort to increase the funding in the targeted assistance so States such as mine, who have high concentrations of poor students, will have a better chance of providing the quality of education opportunity those students deserve and which is needed so much by the poor students. Sixty-five percent of the students in my State have been classified by our State department of education as poor within the meaning of the term in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that contains this title I funding. This program was begun in an effort not to supplant the State's responsibilities but to emphasize the importance of reaching out to those who had not been well served by the public education school system, and those were the poor students. Most of those communities have low tax bases, not much business activity, high rates of unemployment. The funding that goes into education in most States comes from real estate taxes and other taxes at the local level. States provide some of the funds, but most of the money comes from local property owners. The deck is stacked against those students who live in those poor communities. The Federal Government realized it had a responsibility to try to help. We are not trying to take over the running of the schools in title I. We don't want that. Just as recently as this spring, I had hearings in my State and meetings with the State board of education to talk about the title I program and how we could better design it so it would provide the needed financial resources to deal with these particular problems of poor students. Uniformly, I was told that losses in these funds or reductions in these funds would be devastating for our school system in Mississippi. So I am supporting the Gregg amendment because I think it tries to emphasize the importance of title I and provides more funds for title I. I will also cosponsor and vote for the Landrieu amendment. It is not an either/or proposition for the Senate. That is what I am saying. We can vote for both. I think we should.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleagues from Idaho for bringing this issue to the subcommittee's attention. I look forward to working with them and the chairman on this issue. csrees

Mr. COCHRAN. I also look forward to working with the Senators from North Carolina as this technology develops. rural facilities program

Mr. COCHRAN. Certainly the research conducted by the lab is a key component in ensuring that an affordable, safe and dependable supply of nutritious vegetable crops is available to U.S. consumers. I, too, want to assure the Senator from South Carolina that it is my understanding these funds will be used to meet the higher operating costs of the Charleston Vegetable Lab.

Mr. COCHRAN. I understand why this project is important to my colleagues. I will work with them to find a way to help ARS move forward in funding this project.

Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, he asked unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. The amendment has been amended by the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. I hope the Senator from Nebraska will suggest what his intentions are. I don't want to object if the Senator from Nebraska is not going to object.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, what was the request? The Senator asked unanimous consent for something, but I could not understand it.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Wisconsin in thanking the Senator from Michigan for his action. I know it is a serious problem, and it has been well identified. The Senator from Oregon has an interest in it as well. There are other agricultural activities that are similarly situated. We have heard from the Senator from Wyoming, for example, on the plight of the livestock industry; there are problems in some other specific areas of the country because of drought--all of which are in need of special assistance and special economic assistance in this time of hardship. So all of these interests are going to be considered. They should be considered by the Congress as we work to reach an agreement in conference on this bill. I am happy to join with the Senator from Wisconsin in assuring those who talked about the apple industry and the problems they have that their interests will be carefully considered. I hope we can work out a provision in this bill in conference that will be satisfactory with them.

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 am pleased to join my good friend from Wisconsin in presenting this bill to the Senate today. I first want to thank him for his hard work and the work of his staff in helping to draft the bill. It was a pleasure to work with him during the hearings when we heard from administration officials and others about the budget requests of the President and the needs of the Department of Agriculture and the agencies that are funded in this legislation. I am pleased to report that the amounts of discretionary spending recommended in this bill are consistent with the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations under the Budget Act. In way of summary of some of the increases that are provided, I thought the Senate might be interested to know that the bill provides additional funding over last year's levels to enhance food safety activities, quarantine inspection activities, and pest and disease control, including increased vigilance against the entry into this country of foreign animal diseases. The amount recommended for the Agricultural Research Service, for example, will provide enhanced funding for a number of priority research needs including emerging plant and animal diseases, genomics, control of invasive weeds and insects, and the development of bio-based products from agricultural commodities. In the case of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funding increases are recommended for minor crop pest management and sustainable agricultural research. The Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources and Conservation Service has total funding recommended, which includes increases for conservation operations. These are over and above the President's request for resource conservation and development programs and a watershed rehabilitation program. The Foreign Agricultural Service has an increase provided that will enable that agency to strengthen its market intelligence capabilities and to better address technical trade issues, particularly those related to food safety and biotechnology. I am pleased that the bill contains an increase for the Rural Community Advancement Program, which is essential to supporting safe drinking water supplies and waste disposal systems for rural Americans. Let me point out also that in the case of the nutrition programs, the total appropriation recommended for the WIC Program is $204 million more than the 2001 fiscal year level, and it is $110 million more than the level requested by the President for this next fiscal year, 2002. The increase was based on more recent data on projected program costs and participation levels at the time the Senate reported the bill. But since then, there are indications that the WIC caseload has continued to increase with the steady increase in unemployment and that additional funding may be required. I am committed to reexamine this issue in conference to ensure that WIC is adequately funded for fiscal year 2002. Let me also say that in the case of the Food and Drug Administration, the President requested additional appropriations to cover pay increases, to prevent mad cow disease, to enhance import inspections, to enhance adverse events reporting, and food safety activities. This bill recommends the full amount requested for these activities and also provides increased funding for generic drugs, orphan products grants, dietary supplements, and gene therapy tracking. Food safety continues to be a very high priority of this committee. The bill provides the funds necessary to ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food supply in the world. Not only does this bill provide increased funds required for meat and poultry inspection activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, it increases funding for food safety research and for FDA's food safety activities. So the bill accommodates increased funding to meet expected higher WIC participation levels, to control foreign animal diseases and pests, to provide rural Americans access to affordable housing and a safe water supply, and to protect the safety of the Nation's food supply. It is essential for us to consider this expeditiously so we can get this bill to conference with the House and on to the President for his signature. I think Senators should be aware that we are continuing to assess supplemental funding needs of various programs and activities included in this bill as a consequence of the terrorist attacks on our Nation. Mr. President, to reiterate, I am pleased to join my good friend from Wisconsin in presenting for the Senate's consideration today the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill, as recommended to the Senate, provides fiscal year 2002 funding for all programs and activities of the United States Department of Agriculture (with the exception of the Forest Service which is funded by the Interior appropriations bill), the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. As reported, the bill recommends total new budget authority for fiscal year 2002 of $73.9 billion. This is $803 million more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, excluding emergency appropriations, and $78 million less than the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request. Just over seventy-eight percent of the total $73.9 billion recommended by this bill is for mandatory appropriations over which the Appropriations Committee has no effective control. The spending levels for these programs are governed by authorizing statutes. These include not only the payments to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses and fund the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, but also appropriations for the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs. Roughly 22 percent of the total appropriations recommended by the bill is for discretionary programs and activities. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-year spending actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $16.1 billion in both budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002. These amounts are consistent with the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations under the Budget Act. I would like to take a few moments to summarize the bill's major funding recommendations. For the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), appropriations of $716 million are recommended, $21 million more than the fiscal year 2001 level. This provides additional funding to enhance food safety activities and to cover pay and benefit cost increases necessary to support the FSIS workforce, including approximately 7,600 meat and poultry inspectors. For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service responsible for agricultural quarantine inspection activities and pest and disease control--including increased vigilance against the entry into this country of foreign animal disease, such as foot-and-mouth and ``mad cow'' disease--$608 million is recommended. This is an increase of $64 million from the 2001 level. Appropriations for USDA headquarters operations and for other agriculture marketing and regulatory programs are approximately $52 million more than the fiscal year 2001 appropriations levels. Included in this increase is $19 million for information technology investments in support of the Department's Service Center Modernization Initiative; and additional $5 million to support the Department of Agriculture's buildings and facilities and rental payments' requirements; and a $10 million increase for the costs of the Census of Agriculture. For programs needed to meet the credit needs of farmers, the bill funds an estimated $3.9 billion total loan level, $800 million more than last year's level. The amount recommended includes $1.1 billion for farm ownership loans and $2.6 billion for farm operating loans. Total appropriations of $1.2 billion are recommended for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency. This is $121 million more than the 2001 level and the same as the President's budget request. The additional funding will support Farm Service Agency staffing levels essential to keep pace with heavy county office workload demands due to a weakened farm economy. The bill provides total appropriations of $2.1 billion for agriculture research, education, and extension activities. Included in this amount is an increase of $26 million from fiscal year 2001 for Agriculture Research Service (ARS) buildings and facilities; an increase of $108 million of research activities of the ARS; and a $40 million increase in funding for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. The amount recommended for the Agricultural Research Service will continue support for essential ongoing research activities and provide enhanced funding for a number of priority research needs, including those focused on emerging exotic plant and animal diseases, genomics, control of invasive weeds and insects, and the development of biobased products from agricultural commodities. The recommended funding for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service includes a $1.4 million reduction below the fiscal year 2001 level for special research grants; increases of $1.0 million for minor crop pest management and $3.8 million for sustainable agriculture research and education; and total funding of $137 million, a $31.2 million increase, for the National Research Initiative competitive grants program. Appropriations for formula programs, including the Smith-Lever, Hatch Act, and McIntire-Stennis programs, are maintained at the 2001 funding levels. For conservation programs administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, total funding of $980 million is provided, $73 million more than the 2001 level and $52 million more than the President's request. Included in this amount is $802 million for conservation operations, $48 million for the resource conservation and development program, $10 million for a new watershed rehabilitation program, and $7.8 million for the Forestry Incentives Program. USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service is funded at a program level of $126 million, $6 million more than the fiscal year 2001 level and the same as the budget request. The increase provided will enable the agency to strengthen its market intelligence capabilities overseas and to better address technical trade issues, particularly those related to food safety and biotechnology. In addition, total appropriations of $1 billion are recommended for the Public Law 480 program, $31 million more than the fiscal year 2001 and budget request levels. This includes $159.3 million for Title I credit sales, and $850 million for donations of humanitarian food assistance overseas under Title II of the program. The bill also provides total appropriations of $2.8 billion for rural economic and community development programs, along with a total loan authorization level of $10 billion. Included in this amount is $1 billion for the Rural Community Advancement Program essential to supporting safe drinking water supplies and waste disposal systems for rural Americans; $47 million for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service; first-time funding for rural broadband telecommunications and television loans; and $42 million to support a total $4.6 billion program level for rural electric and telecommunications loans. In addition, the bill devotes additional resources to those programs which provide affordable, save, and decent housing for low-income individuals and families living in rural America. Estimated rural housing loan authorizations funded by this bill total $4.5 billion, a net increase of $32 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. Included in this amount is $4.2 billion for section 502 low-income housing direct and guaranteed loans and $114 million for section 515 rental housing loans. In addition, $709 million is included for the rental assistance program. This is $15 million more than the budget request to provide sufficient funds to meet contract renewal requirements, and $30 million more than the 2001 appropriations level. Appropriations totaling $35.8 billion, just over 48 percent of the total $73.9 billion recommended by the bill, will support our nation's nutrition assistance programs. This includes $10.1 billion for child nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs; $4.2 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); $140 million for the commodity assistance program; $151 million for the needy family and elderly feeding food donations programs; and $21.1 billion for the food stamp program. The total appropriation recommended for the WIC program is $204 million more than the 2001 level and $110 million more than the level requested by the President for fiscal year 2002. The increase recommended was based on more recent data on projected program costs and participation levels at the time the Senate reported the bill. However, since then, there are indications that WIC caseload has continued to increase with the steady rise in unemployment and that additional funding may be required. I am committed to reexamine this issue in conference to ensure that WIC is adequately funded for fiscal year 2002. For those independent agencies funded by the bill, the committee provides total appropriations of $1.3 billion, $122 million more than the 2001 level. Included in this amount is $70.4 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and $1.2 billion for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill also establishes a limitation of $36.7 million on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. For salaries and expenses of the FDA, the bill recommends a total increase of $129 million from the 2001 appropriations level. The President requested additional appropriations to cover pay cost increases; to prevent bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or ``mad cow'' disease); to enhance import coverage and inspections; to increase the protection of human subjects in clinical trials; to cover relocation costs and begin the acquisition of a new financial information system; and to enhance adverse events reporting and food safety activities. The bill recommends the full amount requested for these activities, and also provides increased funding for generic drugs, orphan product grants, dietary supplements, and gene therapy tracking. Food safety continues to be a high priority of this committee. This bill, as recommended to the Senate, provides the funds necessary to ensure that American consumers continue to have the safest food supply in the world. Not only does this bill provide increased funds required for meat and poultry inspection activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, it increases funding for food safety research and for FDA's food safety activities. Mr. President, again, only 22 percent of the total funding recommended by this bill is for discretionary programs subject to annual control through the appropriations process. As I indicated earlier, this bill accommodates increased funding to meet expected higher WIC participation levels, to control foreign animal diseases and pests, to provide rural Americans access to affordable housing and a safe water supply. To protect the safety of the Nation's food supply, and many other pressing program needs. Mr. President, this bill was passed by the House of Representatives on July 11, 2001. It was reported to the Senate by the Committee on Appropriations on July 18, 2001. Appropriations for programs and activities covered by the bill are now being provided through a continuing resolution. It is essential that the Senate complete its consideration of this bill so that we can conference it with the House and get a bill to the President. At the same time we work to complete action on the regular appropriations bill, Senators should be aware that we are continuing to assess the supplemental funding needs of various programs and activities included in this bill as a consequence of the terrorist attacks on our Nation. Let me close by thanking my staff members who have been identified by Senator Kohl. I also thank his staff. We worked together in a spirit of bipartisanship, to be sure that the needs and interests of all Senators that have been brought to our attention are taken under serious consideration. I hope we have been able to meet the needs that have been pointed out to the committee during our work on this bill. We are prepared to defend this bill. There are some suggested amendments about which we have heard. As a matter of fact, we have a list about two pages long. Most of these are acceptable, I am happy to say, but there are a few that are not. I hope Senators who do have amendments that we have indicated we will not be able to support will refrain from offering them so we can get on to final passage of the bill and move this legislation along to the President for his signature. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.