Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. It is.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that spirit of cooperation very much. I hope we can move on and complete action on the bill sometime this afternoon. To do that, we are going to have to act on the amendments we have that are going to be offered. It doesn't matter, in my view, who goes next. I don't really care. I am anxious that we proceed and move along and make good progress on the bill. Some Senators have already indicated that the list of amendments we have in order to be offered to the bill will not all be offered. That is good news. We have had some Senators suggest that they are willing to forgo offering their amendments.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to table was agreed to.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it was my intention to move to table the Wellstone amendment, but I understand there may be other Senators who want to speak on that amendment. I do not want to cut off anybody. I do not intend to move to table at this time.

Mr. COCHRAN. In the spirit of the unanimous consent agreement, let me try this: I ask unanimous consent the Senate vote on or in relation to the McCain amendment at 2 o'clock.

Mr. COCHRAN. No objection on this side.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to oblige the Senator from Arizona and set up a unanimous consent agreement to limit time, if there are other Senators who want to speak. I see the Senator from North Dakota on his feet. I assume he wants to speak on the amendment. I know of no other Senators who wish to speak who have not already spoken. Senator Craig indicated an interest in making a motion to table the McCain amendment. We are about at that point where we are ready for a motion to table the amendment. I will yield the floor if anyone wants to speak on the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the Senator proceeding. I think it would expedite the proceedings of the Senate if he would discuss his amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. I understand we have been able to reach an agreement on the list of amendments remaining in order to be offered to this bill. I am prepared, now, to make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. COCHRAN. Objection.

Mr. COCHRAN. As stated, you have no objection.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is suggesting it is okay for Senator McCain to proceed and complete action on his amendment?

Mr. COCHRAN. The objection, not to the last part of the agreement?

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.

Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask consent that following the disposition of the above-listed amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate. I also ask the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, those being the entire subcommittee plus Senators Stevens and Byrd.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader and at his request, I ask consent that the pending motion to waive and any amendments thereto be withdrawn, and that the point of order be withdrawn.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to strike the word ``waive'' in the pending amendment and insert the following: ``Section 205(c) of H. Con. Res. 290 with respect to all emergency designations in this bill and all amendments filed at the desk at this time to this bill other than amendment No. 3918.'' I send the motion to the desk. I ask it be reported.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment states that the microbiological standards imposed by the Secretary of Agriculture, in situations involving those described by the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, must be imposed pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act and be subject to notice and comment procedures under that act. It additionally requires the Secretary, in instances involving contamination of meat and poultry products that are subject to inspection and plant inspection by the Secretary, to seek the advice of the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. This is a panel of scientists, with members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The purpose of the panel is to provide advice and counsel on matters of this kind from experts to the Secretary of Agriculture. We understand that this panel has not had an opportunity to make recommendations or observations about the standards that are the subject of these USDA regulations that were litigated in this court case because the Department of Agriculture decides when they meet, and it is my understanding that the next meeting is scheduled for the fall. There has not been a special meeting called. And the issue has not been placed on the agenda. If my amendment is adopted, the Senate would suggest to the Secretary that this issue ought to be presented to this panel of expert witnesses and the advice of that panel sought in this situation. The Department of Agriculture has indicated that it does not support the Harkin amendment. The Senator said that it has decided to take no position on the amendment because it involves a case that is subject to judicial proceedings at this time. To remind Senators, this is a court case the Senator is asking be reversed by the Senate. The time for appeal has not yet expired. The Department has not decided whether to appeal. The Department of Justice has not made a recommendation, as I understand it, whether it thinks an appeal should be prosecuted or not. They may decide this court was right and then come to the Congress to ask for additional authority, and the Congress may very well decide to give the Department additional authority. But the adoption of this amendment, without suggesting the Department needs to consult first on modifying its standards with an expert panel, that was created for the purpose of providing information, would be premature also. So we hope the Senate will adopt this modification to the Harkin amendment. The vote on the motion to table was a tie vote, and therefore the motion failed. We could let the Senate vote on the amendment of the Senator from Iowa without any further amendment. And if there is another tie vote, the amendment would fall. But in order to try to resolve the issue, for the moment, my suggestion is that the Senate should adopt this amendment, putting in the extra provision of consultation with the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and suggest that, if this standard is given the force and effect of law, there must be some connection between the contaminated product and unsanitary conditions or the way in which the processing plant was being operated in order to justify the Department withdrawing its inspectors and therefore closing the plant. We want to continue to ensure--and this ought to be clear--that our Nation's food supply is safe; that it is processed in the most sanitary conditions possible; that it is inspected to ensure that the food is safe for human consumption, all of that will continue to be reflected in the adoption of this amendment. What we add is that scientific advice and counsel be sought by the Department of Agriculture on this subject with respect to this standard that has been thrown out by a court. If it can be modified to ensure that we continue to see the force and effect of the standards enforced by the courts, then that is what we would like to see happen. We would like it to be done in a process that gives respect for the power of a court and the judicial process that is in place but also the prerogatives of the Congress. The Congress has not empowered the Department of Agriculture to issue a standard of the kind the court said it could not enforce. That is a point to remember, too. The adoption of the Harkin amendment would give that power legislatively, give that power to the Secretary of Agriculture without a careful review of the implications of that new power by the Congress. I am hopeful that this will resolve the issue for the time being, for today. The legislative committee has a right to look at it, to have hearings, to propose changes in the authorities the Department has in situations such as this. That would be the appropriate way to resolve the issue for the long term. But for today, I am hopeful the Senate will agree to this amendment, maybe on a voice vote, and then we can adopt the amendment of the Senator on a voice vote and proceed to other issues.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the amendment to the desk and ask it be reported.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.