Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments that have been made by a number of Senators about the development of this legislation and the efforts we have made to negotiate an agreement with the House and bring back this conference report for final consideration by the Senate today. There have been some statements made on the floor today that I think require a response. There was some singling out of individual research projects by the distinguished Senator from Arizona as if these were pork barrel projects. One response has already been made, and that was by the distinguished Senator from Alabama as he talked about some of the specialty crops and specific agricultural and aquacultural activities in his State. He explained the importance of ongoing research initiatives that will help improve the opportunities for agricultural producers to grow those crops and engage in those agricultural and aquacultural pursuits, and to do so profitably, helping to guarantee safe and wholesome supplies of food and food products for people in that State and throughout the country. We have had a very difficult time in agriculture this year, and because of research, we are able to overcome some of those difficulties and provide hope that in these areas of particular stress in agriculture and aquaculture, we will be able to offer better days in the future. A considerable attempt and a determined attempt is made in this legislation to identify ways to help improve the opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers to stay in business, to deal with the problems of drought, of infestation of insects and pests, to deal with the problems of weeds and other threats to efficient operation and production of our agricultural lands. There is nothing wrong with the Government providing Federal funds to help identify better ways of dealing with these problems in agriculture. One other comment that particularly distresses me is the emphasis on criticizing the existing farm bill as if it is the reason farmers are having such a difficult time. I recall several years ago when we first realized that in the Asian economies they were getting to the point where they were no longer able to import from our country agricultural commodities in the quantities that they had in the past because of the economic crisis. Particularly countries such as Korea, Japan, and other Asian economies were suffering--the so-called ``tiger economies'' of Southeast Asia. And to hear today a statement that for several years in a row we have had to adopt agricultural disaster and economic assistance programs because of the Freedom to Farm Act. Have Senators forgotten some of the problems that our agricultural producers and exporters have had to overcome that had absolutely nothing to do with the Freedom to Farm Act but everything to do with a worldwide economic crisis? That is the main problem that agriculture had in the first 2 years of this existing farm bill. To hear some Senators today indicting, again, the Freedom to Farm bill for the results of this year's drought is another new stretch of the imagination and credibility of this institution. Senators know enough not to believe that. The Senator from Alabama was pointing out how in his State the drought problems are the worst in memory--and not just this year but add to the problems that occurred last year--and you understand how serious, how desperate the situation is in agriculture in Alabama this year, to cite one example. It has nothing to do with the Freedom to Farm Act. Many worked very hard to craft the farm bill of 1996, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and in the House--of course, it was not unanimous. But they worked hard to develop the best possible legislation under which we could provide support and rules under which the Federal Government could make available incentives for production agriculture, stabilize prices, and have a predictable level of support from the Federal Government. The bill attempts to avoid the ups and downs, the whims, of one administration or the other, the vicissitudes of a Congress that is unpredictable at best on these matters. The bill prescribed well in advance, over a period of years, the level of assistance for commodity producers that were eligible for benefits-- that was the result of that negotiation in the legislation that was produced. And now to lay it all off on that, as if that is the reason for these difficulties, to me, goes too far and deserves a response. It ought to have a response. I am pointing out at least two instances where that indictment and that criticism is just not accurate, it is not supported by the facts, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. This legislation includes, however, $3.6 billion in additional assistance of an emergency nature to try to assist those who have had difficulties this year over and above those that were expected. Because of findings made by the Senate and the House and the administration, this justifies emergency funding, and it is included in this legislation. So I am hopeful and I am confident that the Senate is going to recognize the legitimacy and the importance of adopting this conference report. It reflects a lot of hard work by members of our appropriations subcommittee that developed the legislation, working in a bipartisan fashion, and working with our colleagues in the other body after our bill was passed and we negotiated this conference report with them, to come up with the best possible work product under the circumstances that we find ourselves today. But no matter how much money we appropriate for research, for disaster assistance, for export assistance, trying to help stimulate our sales in overseas markets, we cannot solve all the problems of agriculture by the passage of this one bill. Everybody knows that. But it is a major and important step, and it will benefit a lot of American agricultural producers. There is also more in this bill than just production agriculture assistance, but it is an important aspect of this legislation. This is a $78 billion bill. Nearly $40 billion of the funds relates to agriculture, landowner assistance, research to try to help do the things you have to do to maintain efficiency, understand the new technologies, translate the research from the laboratory to the farm through extension programs so that we have the finest, the most efficient, the most dependable agricultural sector in the world. This bill achieves those goals. We also, at the same time, provide food safety programs, an inspection service that is fully funded, a food safety initiative that is fully funded at the request of the administration, to make sure that we have a wholesome supply of food, and it is fit for consumption by Americans, and it is reasonably priced. We achieve that goal in this legislation. There are many in our country who do not have the benefit of high incomes. We have low-income people who live in poverty areas who need food assistance. This legislation includes school lunch program and school breakfast program funding. It includes Women, Infants, and Children Program funding, Food Stamp Program funding, assistance to soup kitchens, to those who use surplus commodities to provide lunches and meals for people who cannot afford food, so that we do not have people who are out of work and out of food. This legislation provides that important benefit as well. So, on balance, this is a good bill. It deserves the support of the Senate. I hope all Senators will support it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the status of the time and the allocation between both sides?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator what time he may consume.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with sections 745 and 746 of this bill, the Congress intends to facilitate access for Americans to reimport U.S.-made prescription medicines, as long as it does not lower the safety standards that previous Congresses and Administrations have carefully developed in consumer, health and safety protection legislation over the years. Under these provisions, Americans are allowed access to U.S. products sold overseas at lower prices provided that those medicines, when reimported, are demonstrated to be safe and effective. At the time the Senate considered this appropriations bill, the Senate adopted an additional safeguard to protect consumer health and safety. By a vote of 96 to 0, the Senate agreed to an amendment which Senator Kohl and I offered to the amendment of Senator Jeffords to include the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000 on this bill. That amendment is retained in this conference report, and requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make two determinations before the changes to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA, in section 745(c) can be implemented. The Secretary is required to demonstrate to the Congress that implementation will: (1) pose no additional risk to the public's health and safety, and (2) result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer. As contained in section 745(c), section 804(l) enlists the expertise and conscience of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make a specific and clear demonstration to assure these changes to the law will produce their intended result and do no unintended harm. In a written report to the Congress, the Secretary is to demonstrate the factual basis for his or her decision. That report should include relevant analysis and information that implementation of these changes in law will pose no additional risks to the American public's health and safety and will significantly reduce retail prices. After all, the motivation for these changes in law is to let U.S. drugs be brought back from Canada and other countries where they cost less, allowing these drugs to be available to individual American consumers at lower prices. If reimportation results primarily in profits for importers and does not result in a reduction in the price of drugs to American consumers, then the intent of these provisions is not achieved. I believe that with the additional safeguard provided by the original amendment adopted by the Senate, we can be more assured that this new drug reimportation system, if implemented, will not have adverse unintended effects on public health and safety and will achieve its intended result of making drugs more affordable for individual American consumers.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the conference report includes a provision that is designed to eliminate an inequity that has arisen regarding a special grade designation of rice known as sweet rice. This rice had been ineligible for price support for some time, but the Department of Agriculture changed the rules in December 1999 to make the 1999 crop eligible for marketing loans and loan deficiency payments for the first time. Unfortunately, producers of this rice had not been notified by the county offices of the crop's eligibility until after the period for obtaining loans and loan deficiency payments had expired. The provision in the conference report is designed to correct this inequity. The provision would extend the eligibility date for such loans and loan deficiency payments and allow producers of such rice who lost beneficial interest in the crop on or before May 31, 2000, the final date for obtaining loans or loan deficiency payment, to obtain a loan deficiency payment based on the payment rate in effect on the date they lost the beneficial interest. Producers who lost the beneficial interest in their production after May 31, 2000 would be eligible to receive a loan deficiency payment based on the payment rate in effect on May 31. The conferees had agreed that this provision was necessary to make whole those producers of the crop who had lost the opportunity to obtain price support through no fault of their own.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator 2 additional minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux.

Mr. COCHRAN. This language does not intend to create any additional restrictions beyond the restriction on which institutions are eligible to receive grants. solid waste management grant program

Mr. COCHRAN. I commend the Senators for their interest in this program. I want to assure the gentlemen that it is the Committee's belief that the Secretary of Agriculture should continue to provide funding from discretionary amounts for this program. The Initiative for future agriculture and food systems

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the conference report includes funding for American Heritage Rivers program under the Conservation Operations and Watershed Surveys and Planning accounts of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS. Funding for this program is limited to that requested in the President's budget. It is my understanding that there are communities which are in the final stages of being included in the American Heritage Rivers program, including Vicksburg and Natchez, Mississippi. It is not our intention to limit these funds to those communities that were included in the program when the budget was submitted. Further, if additional communities are added during fiscal year 2001, they should be eligible for all funds available for the American Heritage Rivers program. Also, technical assistance can be provided, without limitation, by the NRCS to farmers or communities in an American Heritage River designated area. national rural development partnership

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.

Mr. COCHRAN. I understand the challenges facing California's growers. The Administration's budget request of $31.91 million for the Program earmarks only $300,000 for equipment and maintenance of the State's Preventive Release Program. The fiscal year 2001 Agriculture appropriations bill provides $32.61 million for the Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection Program. The $700,000 above the Administration's request is to be used to enhance the release program and detection trapping in California.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, the managers intend that the Secretary of Agriculture fully implement section 804 which provides authority to compensate growers for crop losses due to new and emergent pests and diseases: including Mexican fruit flies, plum pox virus, Pierce's disease, grasshoppers and Mormon crickets, and watermelon sudden wilt disease. Senator Lugar, as you noted, section 804 is designed to provide compensation to growers for crop losses due to several new and emergent pests and diseases, none of which may necessarily be a weather-related problem. Full implementation of section 804 is necessary for growers to receive compensation for these various problems. fruit fly exclusion and detection program

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator the time he requested.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2296, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 3 p.m. today to submit statements for the Record.