Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. The Harkin amendment is $70 million. The Levin-Collins amendment is $115 million; the Graham-Mack amendment to compensate for nursery stock losses does not score. No. 4, an amendment on behalf of Senators Lott, Cochran, and Kohl to extend the wetlands reserve program; it is estimated to cost $117 million; No. 5, an amendment on behalf of Senators Leahy and Jeffords, compensation for livestock losses, is estimated to cost $4 million; No. 6, an amendment on behalf of Senators Harkin and Bond, for green biotechnology evaluation, estimated to cost $600,000; No. 7, an amendment on behalf of Senators Abraham, Schumer, and Levin, for potatoes and apples quality losses, estimated to cost $45 million; No. 8, on behalf of Senators Graham and Mack on compensation for citrus canker losses, estimated to cost $40 million; No. 9, on behalf of Senator Cochran, on emergency APHIS funding, estimated to cost $59.4 million; An amendment on behalf of Senators Thurmond and Hollings on grain indemnity assistance, estimated to cost $2.5 million; An amendment on behalf of Senator Cochran on conservation assistance, no score on budget authority, $6 million in budget outlays; No. 12, on behalf of Senator Sessions on livestock assistance, no score is available, and is estimated to have no cost; No. 13, on behalf of Senator Edwards on community facilities, estimated to cost $50 million; No. 14, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, natural disaster assistance, the amendment described, $450 million; No. 15, Senators Inouye and Akaka, an amendment on commodity transportation assistance, estimated to cost $7.2 million. That is the entire list, for the information of Senators. It has been reviewed by the managers and recommended to the Senate by the offering of the amendment as eligible for agriculture emergency assistance in the amounts identified as stated.

Mr. COCHRAN. I was going to give you a total dollar number.

Mr. COCHRAN. For the information of Senators and the edification of all Senators who have asked that amendments be put before the Senate, under a section of the bill entitled ``Agriculture Emergency Assistance Package,'' I will read the list that the managers recommend be considered now by the Senate: Amendment No. 1, for Senator Harkin, to provide additional funding for emergency watershed and flood prevention operations; No. 2, an amendment for Senators Levin and Collins to provide emergency assistance to apple and potato producers; No. 3, an amendment on behalf of Senators Graham and Mack----

Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the managers of the bill, I send a package of amendments to the desk, the agriculture emergency assistance package, and ask that they be reported.

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 move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. I see. I am reminded of a story my colleague from Mississippi, with whom I served in the body for 10 years before he retired--Senator John Stennis--told about a conference; I have forgotten which committee, but it was appropriations. He was chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations at the time he retired from the Senate. An amendment had been adopted in the Senate, and it was dropped in conference. The Senator who was managing the conference was explaining the provisions of the bill and what had been agreed to by the House and what had been rejected by the House. The author of an amendment got up and asked: Why wasn't my amendment accepted by the House? The manager said: We discussed it fully, and there was a lot of discussion, but it was not accepted by the House. He said: I want to know why; what did they say? The manager said: They didn't say. It is an indication that sometimes the House rejects an amendment. They don't feel obliged to tell you why they rejected it. They just say: We are not going to accept it. I have seen that happen. I have seen the chairman of the full committee on the Senate Appropriations Committee have to personally go to a conference and almost beg the conferees on the part of the House to accommodate an interest in his State that he thought deserved the support of the conference. It was almost a humiliating experience. I will never forget it. But it was an illustration of the fact that the other body takes their prerogatives very seriously, particularly on appropriations. I am reminded every year how difficult it is to get our way in conference in negotiations with the House. It is a tough challenge. Ultimately it gets the work out, but in the process there are Senate provisions that are dropped in conference, that are not agreed to by the House, in spite of the very best efforts that are made by the Senate to have their way in those negotiations. All I can say in respect to the Senator's insistence that this amendment be kept in conference is, we will do our best.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota and bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate, frankly. More and more in the last few years, unemployment rates have been coming down. The economy is strong. Everybody knows that. And I kept asking, why aren't the participation rates in food stamps and other nutrition programs coming down? For a little while, they were going up, too. We had the number of people wanting work, finding work, going up. Incomes were going up. In my State of Mississippi, we saw income levels reaching new highs, but the food stamp participation was still going up. Pretty soon, though, that began to change and the food stamp participation rates began coming down. I thought this was an indication that people did not need as much nutrition assistance from these Federal programs as they did in the past. We hadn't changed in the last few years any of the eligibility or participation in the program. We did so back in the welfare reform days, and we all remember that process. There was a big push to do away with the Food Stamp Program. Some in the Senate pushed very hard to turn the program over to the States. Others resisted it. As it came out, it was preserved as a Federal program. It would be administered by the States, as in the past. By and large, it continued to exist without too many changes. The Senator is suggesting that because there continue to be dropoffs, reductions in the participation, something is wrong and we need to find out what it is. If there is something wrong, we need to be aware of it. I agree with the Senator. If the program is being administered in a way that denies those who are eligible under the law for benefits, we need to know about it. We need to try to make sure that those who need assistance and who are eligible for assistance get the assistance to which they are entitled and that there are funds here that will make those program benefits available to every eligible person in our country. That is our goal. That is my goal. That is my attitude. That is my view about this subject. I support the Senator's effort to have a study, and I will work in conference to see that funds are made available to do that study. I know the Food and Nutrition Service has been working on that issue. He is suggesting, as I understand the amendment, the Economic Research Service use some of the funds available to it to conduct a study, as well. I am prepared to take the matter to conference and to do as well as we can in conference with the House on this issue and the language the Senator has. I am told by my staff there are some suggested improvements--and I hope the Senator will agree they are improvements in the language of the amendment--that will strengthen the amendment in conference, and, if so, that the Senator will understand and be supportive of our efforts to see that the study achieves the goals the Senator intends. One aside: When the Senator made the point about amendments adopted here that are not accepted in conference, and it makes him furious, I was reminded of a story.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand not all of the agreement can be agreed to at this point, but I will recite that which can be agreed to if there is no objection. We will see if there is. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order to the pending Agriculture appropriations bill, that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments, and no points of order be considered waived by this agreement. I will submit a list of amendments rather than reading them. The list follows: Jeffords: Drug importation. Burns: Crop Insurance Program. B. Smith: Wildlife services. B. Smith: Relevant to list. B. Smith: Relevant. B. Smith: Relevant. B. Smith: Relevant. B. Smith: RU486. B. Smith: Sanctions. B. Smith: Sanctions. B. Smith: Sanctions. B. Smith: Sanctions. Abraham:Prescription drugs. Ashcroft: Relevant. Ashcroft: Relevant. Chafee: Sanctions. Warner: Relevant. Warner: Relevant. G. Smith: Goose related crop depredation. Santorum: National robotics consortium. Santorum: African farming. Collins:Relevant. Abraham:Relevant. Abraham:Asparagus. Gramm: Relevant to list. Gramm: Relevant. McCain: Relevant. McCain: Relevant. McCain: Relevant. Cochran:Relevant. Cochran:Relevant. Cochran:Relevant. Cochran:Relevant. Nickles:Relevant. Campbell: Bison meat. Grams: Finpack. Grams: Ratites. Lott: Relevant to list. Lott: Relevant to list. Stevens:Relevant. Stevens:Relevant. Jeffords: Dairy exports. Hutchinson: Relevant. McConnell: Sulfites in wine. Sessions: Emergency feed operations. Sessions: Emergency feed operations. Sessions: Satsuma orange frost research. Specter:Amtrack. Thurmond: Relevant. Akaka: Agriculture product. Baucus: Oregon inlet (point of order). Baucus: Beef industry compensation. Baucus: Food Stamp Montana. Baucus: Northern plains. Baucus: Montana sheep industry. Baucus: Oregon inlet. Boxer: Citrus imports. Boxer: Organic wine. Boxer: Relevant. Byrd: Relevant. Byrd: Relevant. Cleland:Emergency loans, poultry producers. Conrad: Motion to instruct conferees. Conrad: Relevant. Conrad: Relevant. Daschle:Relevant. Daschle:Relevant. Daschle:Relevant. Daschle:Relevant to any amendment on the list. Daschle:Relevant to any amendment on the list. Daschle:Strategic Energy Reserves. Daschle:Agricultural competition. Daschle:CRP contract integrity. Daschle:Wetlands pilot. Dodd: Oysters. Dodd: Relevant. Dorgan: Relevant. Dorgan: Relevant. Dorgan: Disaster aid. Dorgan: Bison meat. Dorgan: Food aid. Dorgan: Drug importation (with Jeffords). Durbin: Point of order/motion to strike re: hard rock mining. Edwards: USDA community facilities. Edwards: Relevant. Feingold: Relevant. Feingold: Relevant. Feingold: Relevant. Feingold: Relevant. Feinstein: Citrus. Feinstein: Rice. Feinstein: Relevant. Feinstein: Relevant. Graham: Cuba sanctions. Graham: Citrus canker. Graham: Nursery crops. Graham: Relevant. Harkin: Emergency watershed. Harkin: GIPSA. Harkin: GIPSA emergency. Harkin: Meat and poultry inspection. Harkin: Agrability. Harkin: Renewable fuels. Harkin: Renewable fuels. Harkin: Methamphetamine. Harkin: FDA. Harkin: Relevant. Harkin: Relevant. Harkin: Relevant. Harkin: Relevant. Inouye: Commodity Credit Corp (CCC). Inouye: Relevant. Johnson: Relevant. Johnson: Relevant. Johnson: Relevant. Johnson: Relevant. Kennedy: Food safety. Kennedy: Prescription drugs. Kohl: Relevant. Kohl: Relevant. Kohl: Relevant. Kohl: Manager's amendment. Landrieu: Agricultural research. Leahy: Relevant. Leahy: Relevant. Levin: Relevant. Levin: Relevant. Levin: Relevant. Lieberman: Relevant. Lincoln: Relevant. Lincoln: Relevant. Reed: Lobster shell disease. Reed: Hunt River watershed (ground water source). Reed: Pocasset River plug (flood plain management). Reed: Pocasset River plug (flood plain management). Reed: Relevant. Reed: Relevant. Reid: Relevant. Reid: Relevant to any amendment on the list. Robb: Tobacco research. Torricelli: Speciality crops. Torricelli: Domestic violence. Torricelli: Lead. Torricelli: SOS domestic violence. Torricelli: Relevant. Torricelli: Relevant. Wellstone: GIPSA funding. Wellstone: Calculation of farm income. Wellstone: Food Stamp study. Wellstone: Summer Food Program. Wellstone: Telework Amendment No. 1. Wellstone: Telework Amendment No. 2. Wyden: Relevant. Wyden: Relevant.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to withhold and happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. COCHRAN. I struck the language that he suggested bothered him. He read that language to be ``that is shown to be adulterated.'' He was worried about connecting proof of contaminated food with the ability of the Department of Agriculture to shut down a plant. And he thought with the addition of those words I was adding something new, a new hurdle that had to be crossed by the Department of Agriculture in implementing the standards. So I modified the amendment to remove the troublesome words, to assure him the crux of the amendment was to get the advice and the input of the experts, the scientific experts. And I modified it. And that is not enough. Now the Senator wants me to interpret the legal status of these regulations as they are affected by this district court decision in Texas. This morning I tried to put that all in context. I know I am taking much too much time. I discussed the reasons for my motion to table the Harkin amendment. I have just about gotten worn out with explaining why I wanted to table the Harkin amendment, why I thought it was an amendment that ought not be put on this Agriculture appropriations bill. I have said it over and over again. The Senate voted on that, and the motion to table was not agreed to. The vote was tied, 49-49. I could have let the amendment then be voted on by the Senate without any further amendment but, frankly, I thought it would be helpful to the Senate to clarify the rule problem I had with the amendment, and that was why we added the language as an amendment. I proposed at that time that amendment, the Cochran amendment to the Harkin amendment, be adopted by a voice vote and then the Harkin amendment be adopted by a voice vote. Think about that. We had just had a tie vote on the whole issue. Yet we offered to let the amendment of the Senator that almost was tabled, lacking one vote to be tabled, be agreed to and go on to considering other issues. That was not good enough either. We took up other business because the Senator was not prepared to proceed to consider the bill further. He wanted to do something else. We finally, now after having taken up several other amendments, get back to the Harkin amendment. He complained and pointed out what was troubling him. We tried to modify it. I have done everything I can think up to satisfy the Senator and to give him the right to have his arguments on the floor of the Senate, to have this issue fully considered, and to have the Senate act on it. I have gone about as far as one can go. I am hopeful the Senator will agree that the Cochran amendment can be adopted on a voice vote--if he wants to have a record vote, be my guest--and adopt the Harkin amendment on a voice vote, as amended by the Cochran amendment. Otherwise, maybe I will try to renew the motion to table. Maybe Senators have heard enough now so they know what the facts are about this amendment and that it is an attempt to reverse a decision of a district court in Texas that can be appealed to the court of appeals if the Department of Agriculture wants to appeal it and if the Department of Justice wants to prosecute the appeal for them. That is up to the Department and the lawyers at the Department of Justice. I am being asked to interpret and sort through this and give a definitive answer about the effects when lawyers argued their case in Texas probably for a long and full time before a court there. They made a decision. What I am saying is, I would like to satisfy the Senator, but I do not think there is any way to do it. We should just move on, and let's vote and see how the votes turn out.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an observation, I accommodated the Senator's interest--I tried to--by modifying my amendment in a way that he said would make it acceptable.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, my amendment does not address the present standards and the effect of the decision of the court in Texas. The amendment of the Senator deals with that. I am only trying to address one small aspect of this, and that is the involvement of this national advisory committee so the Secretary would have the benefit of scientific advice and evidence and information.

Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to assure him that my intent in offering the amendment is to involve the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods in the process by which the Secretary promulgates regulations or standards with respect to this act to which his amendment relates.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield again, I think my amendment speaks for itself. If it is unclear, then the legislative history and trying to determine the intent of Congress in the use of the words is relevant. If the language is clear on its face and the meaning is clear on its face, then legislative history and intent and our conversation is never considered by a court. My view is that this is about as clear as we can say anything. That is, that any regulations promulgated under the authority of this act to which the Senator's amendment applies must be done with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. That is all my amendment seeks to do. That is all that is intended by my amendment. There is no intent to speak on any other subject, to affect the decisions of the Department of Agriculture in promulgating standards, promulgating regulations. My amendment is limited strictly to seeking the advice in the process of promulgating standards of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. I don't know how I can say it, how it can be said any clearer than the language of the amendment says it. So the Senator can ask me whether I intend anything else and I can assure him I don't intend anything else, other than the clear and precise meaning of the words that are used in the amendment.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if my amendment is accepted by the Senator, my amendment would amend your amendment only in one respect; that is, on page 2 of the amendment we would strike the words ``established by the Secretary'' and insert the language that I quoted: ``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' That is the only respect in which my amendment would modify or change the amendment of the Senator from Iowa. In all other respects, the Senator's amendment remains as he offered it.

Mr. COCHRAN. I don't think I can satisfy the Senator's curiosity about the legal effect of his amendment as amended by my amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to table the Harkin amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment, on its face, looks as though the Senate is being asked to vote in favor of supporting the Department of Agriculture's standards for meat inspection that include the power to shut down a plant if it is found that the product being produced contains a contaminant. In the case in Dallas, TX, the Senator cites, it was salmonella. The plant operated by Supreme Beef in that area was shut down by the Department of Agriculture and, according to testimony in the case in Texas, it was shut down solely on the basis of the fact that the product being produced contained a prohibitive level of salmonella, or some salmonella. What the court said was that the Department of Agriculture wasn't given that kind of power by the Congress to impose regulations of that kind, and that to shut down a plant there had to be some connection between the operation of the plant and the presence of the salmonella in the product. In other words, if the plant was totally sanitary, obeyed every rule of law or regulation of the Department of Agriculture for safe and sanitary operation, just because of the test, the Department was without the power under the law to shut down the plant. This amendment--if we adopt it--as suggested by the Senator from Iowa, would impose a new legal authority that is not now present, which would give the Department of Agriculture more power than it has, more power than it has asked for, and, I suggest, more power than we ought to give on an appropriations bill, without more careful review; that is, the power to arbitrarily shut down a plant, whether it is being operated correctly and in a sanitary manner, with all due regard for the product that is being produced, the safety of that product for human consumption. Because of this court case that puts in question the Department's authority that it exercised in this one case, we are being asked now to say that these standards, which are regulations in effect, ought to be codified; they ought to be put in the form of a law. Now, that is a step that we, in my view, ought not to take--not on this bill, not as an amendment to an appropriations bill, not on the basis of one district's court's finding in the State of Texas, which doesn't have application and is not being honored by the Department's regulators anywhere else in the United States except in that Federal court jurisdiction. The Department of Agriculture has not asked for this amendment. I am advised that the Department of Agriculture doesn't support this amendment. The Department of Agriculture has not yet decided whether to appeal this decision of the district court. It may decide to modify its regulations because of this district court decision. So we would be acting prematurely and, in response to the suggestion in this amendment, we would be exceeding even the decision being made now in the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Justice, which has to prosecute the appeal. So the Department of Justice hasn't decided, I am told, whether to appeal this decision to the court of appeals. The Department hasn't decided that yet. Yet we are being asked to reverse, in effect, by legislation, the decision of that district court. We are not an appellate court. I suggest that the Senate should not act today favorably on this amendment as if we are reviewing the legal intricacies involved in this case and are making some careful, thoughtful determination about whether or not that case ought to stand or whether it ought to be reversed. I am going to suggest to the Senate that what we ought to do is look at the implications through hearings in the Agriculture Committee or in the committee that has jurisdiction over other food safety concerns. Our Appropriations Subcommittee could conduct hearings--and that might be the appropriate thing to do--and hear from the Department of Agriculture and hear from others who have views on this subject. And then we could make a recommendation to the Senate. But this is a brand new decision, as the Senator said; it was made, I think, in May. It is a recent decision. We ought to let the legal process work its way to a conclusion with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice, and the packing company involved in this case. They must have had some persuasive evidence to present to the court as to why the Department of Agriculture acted arbitrarily and improperly, or without the sanction of law, to shut down this plant as they did. And here we are going to substitute our judgment collectively for the judgment of the district court judge who heard all the evidence, who saw the witnesses, including Department of Agriculture officials who described what they did and why they did it. The Senate needs to know that there is a committee that is available to the Department of Agriculture that is called the Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria. The Department of Agriculture and the Secretary look to this committee normally for advice and consult on issues of this kind. No consultation, as I understand it, has taken place with this special committee of experts who are brought together for the purpose of providing scientifically based opinions to the Secretary of Agriculture on the question of adulteration and sanitation issues of meat and poultry packing and processing plants. So let's not pretend that we know as much as this advisory committee. Let's not pretend that we have a better reason for making a decision in this case than the district court did, which found just the opposite of what the Senator is asking this Senate to find. So I am suggesting that this is premature. It is inappropriate for us to legislate in this fashion on an appropriations bill, without the benefit of facts and expert opinions and views on the subject. So it is my intention, without cutting off anyone's right to speak, to move to table the Senator's amendment and to ask for the yeas and nays on that vote. But I do not want to make that motion right now without notice to my friend and colleague from Iowa or any other Senator who wants to be heard. We had told all Senators they could expect a vote on an amendment on this bill at or about 10:30. I hope we can keep that commitment to the Senate.