[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4791-S4798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending 
legislation, which would provide for disaster relief and for 
accompanying rescissions.
  This is not by any measure a partisan bill--indeed, it was put 
together by the Appropriations Committee in the same fine bipartisan 
spirit that has always characterized that committee, and the 
relationship between two very fine and capable men--Chairman Hatfield 
and the ranking member, Senator Byrd.
  I do believe, however, that there is good cause for many of us who 
are now in the majority, to be particularly pleased with this 
legislation.
  If there was one glaring, disturbing symptom of ``business as usual'' 
in Washington as practiced for too many recent years, it would be the 
practice of always saying ``yes'' to new spending, even when most 
always failing to make the hard decisions to pay for it.
  One category of spending in which this has been most obvious has been 
the area of disaster relief. It is, of course, entirely fitting and 
proper that we provide assistance to those who are in need solely 
because of an ``act of God.'' But we have too often simply appropriated 
this money, added it to the Federal deficit, and failed to prioritize 
our spending priorities within existing spending levels.
  I joined our distinguished leader, Senator Dole, during the last 
session, in attempting to provide for a full spending cut offset during 
the last time the Senate considered emergency disaster appropriations. 
We failed in that effort, I am quite sorry to say.
  But today we see here a bill that not only provides for needed 
disaster assistance, but more than makes up for that new spending with 
an even larger amount of spending cuts. This, to me, means that we have 
truly arrived at a brand new day in Washington.
  Let me assure my colleagues that we do no extra, special service to 
the victims of disaster, nor to our future generations, by simply 
adding the tab for such spending to the future national debt. We do not 
need to be reminded that we will soon be asked to vote the debt limit 
up to $5 trillion--an astonishing, incomprehensible, inconceivable 
figure.
  The accumulation of such massive debts does not assist us in our 
efforts to cope with disasters or to forestall their worst effects. It 
only undercuts our ability to adequately provide for such work. There 
has never been a good policy reason to add such spending to 
accumulating debts.
  Rather, the existence of a natural emergency, of a climate of 
urgency, has simply been used extensively by this Congress as an 
excuse--a ``good'' reason to deficit-spend.
  I am so very pleased to stand here today and be considering a bill 
that will provide for those in need but will not add to the Nation's 
debt. I think it is notable that the first amendment to this 
legislation--offered by our fine colleague Senator Mikulski--sought not 
to strike the proposed rescissions from the bill--but rather to replace 
the targeted, considered rescissions with ``across-the-board'' cuts.
  I opposed that amendment, as I believe the targeted approach to be 
the better way to prioritize our spending.
  I agree with my friend Senator Bond that we appear to assume that 
existing priorities are perfectly set whenever we attempt across-the-
board cuts--though surely they are not. But I take heart in the offered 
amendment as well--the consideration of such an amendment first shows 
us that we are in a new atmosphere these days, in which fiscal prudence 
is considered to be desirable. It shows that the voters indeed drove 
their message home hard last November.
  I feel very pleased that my colleagues will approve the pending 
rescissions legislation.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I propose an amendment, I would 
like to make a few remarks on the legislation pending before the 
Senate.
  First, I congratulate the managers of the bill, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. I think the $13 billion 
that is going to be taken out of the deficit is an important step 
forward. I think that some very difficult decisions have been made, and 
I know that the Appropriations Committee has very difficult choices to 
make.
  I do note also that the House has cut $17 billion, a $4 billion 
differential. Many of those, of course, were carefully examined by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee and were found wanting.
  Madam President, earlier, I wrote a letter to the chairman of the 
committee recommending $6.3 billion in low-priority defense and 
nondefense items funded in the defense budget, as well as several 
domestic programs.
  I do not want to go through all the details, but clearly there was 
some funding that could have been the subject of a rescission. I regret 
that they were not included in this package. Things like $5.8 million--
this is out of the defense appropriations budget--$5.8 million for the 
National Center for Toxicological Research; National Guard outreach 
program in the Los Angeles school district; directed allocation of 
child development funds to the Pacific region; a wild horse roundup at 
White Sands missile range, New Mexico; electrical service upgrades; 
natural gas study and infrastructure planning. 
[[Page S4792]] Again, these are out of the defense appropriations bill, 
I emphasize. $2.5 million--I am sorry, I did not give the amounts--$2.5 
million to establish a land management training center; $2.2 million 
for a natural gas study and infrastructure planning; $1.5 million for a 
wild horse roundup; $1 million for improvement of navigational charts 
for the lower Mississippi River; $10 million for a Los Angeles school 
district youth program.
  Again, Madam President, many of these funds may be very important and 
vital, but what happens around here is if you cannot get it into the 
specific appropriations for which they would normally be attached, 
then, of course, they are in the defense appropriations because it has 
such a large amount of money available.
  What is $1 million to improve the navigational charts for the lower 
Mississippi? What is $10 million for the Los Angeles school district; 
$2.5 million for natural gas utilization; $10 million for natural gas 
vehicles; $10 million for electrical vehicles? The list goes on and on, 
Madam President.
  What I am saying is that they had nothing to do with defense. They 
should have been rescinded and, unfortunately, they were not.
  Mr. President, $11 million for seismic research, that incorporated 
research institutions; $20 million for National Center for 
Manufacturing Sciences; $5.4 million for Hawaii, small business 
development center; $1 million for Saltsburg Remediation Center, 
whatever that might be; an additional $15 million for electrical 
computers; $4 million, Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing 
Systems; $5 million for nursing research; $1 million for the Police 
Research Institute.
  I might add, that was put in in conference, never scrutinized in any 
authorization procedure or appropriations procedure on the floor.
  Another $1 million for the southwestern Oregon narcotics task force. 
Again, not in either bill; $18.5 million for a mental health care 
demonstration project at Fort Bragg, NC, with an open-ended pricing 
program growth clause.
  The list goes on and on, Madam President. The fact is that we should 
stop it. We had an opportunity to do away with some of, at least, the 
$6.3 billion that I had sent and recommended to the Appropriations 
Committee, and I hope that in the years to come, we will try to 
exercise significantly more discipline.
  Also, we proposed rescissions of $352 million which was appropriated 
for earmark for surface transportation projects which do not 
necessarily represent either Federal, State, or local priorities. We 
should have rescinded any unobligated moneys, in my view.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995 included $290 
million in special-purpose grants. According to estimates, only $7 
million of this funding has been properly authorized.
  Examples of projects funded in that bill which should have been 
rescinded is $450,000 for the construction of the Center for Political 
Participation; $750,000 for the Sci-Trek Science Center to create a 
mezzanine level in its building to increase exhibit space in downtown 
Atlanta; $1.45 million to the College of Notre Dame in Baltimore, MD, 
for capital costs, including equipping and outfitting activities in 
connection with renovation of the science center; and $2 million for 
the De Paul University library to provide direct services and 
partnerships with community organizations, schools and individuals.
  Madam President, my point here is many of these programs are good 
programs. Many of them are even needed programs. The question is, are 
they needed to the degree where we should fund them out of taxpayers' 
dollars, unauthorized? And sometimes they even did not go through the 
appropriations process. They clearly did not undergo the scrutiny that 
was necessary.
  I would like to thank the committee for adopting language to rescind 
wastewater treatment earmarks put in last year. I also appreciate the 
committee's restriction on the expenditure of $19 million which was 
earmarked to construct a footbridge to Ellis Island, a bridge that was 
opposed by the National Park Service. The committee has agreed to hold 
up that money until an environmental impact statement on the project is 
completed. I think this is a prudent and responsible action, and I 
commend them.
  Mr. President, the committee should also be commended for making a 
number of spending cuts that exceed the House reduction. In fact, the 
Senate cuts more than the House in 61 programs.
  I might point out that in several accounts, including highway 
demonstration projects and local library programs, the Senate 
rescission does not even equal cuts recommended by President Clinton. I 
think the Senate can and should do better, and I will offer an 
amendment later to restore rescissions requested by the President.
  I have been examining the bill in detail since it came out on Monday, 
having been marked up in committee last Friday. I am curious about a 
number of items that remain funded in the bill. I wonder if I might ask 
the managers several questions.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in questions and 
answers with the manager of the bill, the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask my friend from Washington, on page 
6 of the House report, which I do not expect the Senator from 
Washington to have, I will quote it to him.
  The House rescission bill on page 6 said:

       The committee recommends a rescission of $12,678,000 in the 
     Agriculture Research Service buildings and facilities 
     program. These funds were appropriated for the construction 
     of a swine research center. Additional construction cost 
     requirements for this facility are about $13 million. The 
     Agriculture Research Service currently conducts swine 
     research in at least 13 different Federal facilities at a 
     cost of over $26 million. Many of these programs and 
     facilities are ongoing projects. The agency has no plans to 
     abolish or move existing research and researchers to the 
     proposed swine center if it is constructed. The Department of 
     Agriculture has estimated this facility would cost about $10 
     million annually to operate.
       Existing legislation directs the downsizing of the Federal 
     work force. Therefore, providing additional researchers for 
     this facility would cause adverse effects in research 
     elsewhere.
       Critical swine research could be carried out at an existing 
     ARS facility at considerably less cost than providing an 
     additional facility at a time when USDA is closing facilities 
     and reducing staff.

  I ask my friend from Washington if he knew of that action that was 
taken by the House and perhaps tell me where the facility is located 
and what that facility would do, if he has information.
  Mr. GORTON. I may say to my friend from Arizona that I have the House 
report here in front of me. My page 6 deals with the Department of 
State international organizations----
  Mr. McCAIN. The bottom of page 7, top of page 8.
  Mr. GORTON. Again, I answer my friend from Arizona in the following 
fashion: I do not see the Senator from Iowa on the floor, though I 
suspect he will be back soon. I think he or the Senator from 
Mississippi can better answer the Senator from Arizona. This Senator is 
here in anticipation of an amendment by the Senator from Arizona on the 
subject of the Interior Department Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I 
intended, in connection with the offsets, to defer most of the debate 
to those who were familiar with the program.
  I do notice the Senator from Mississippi here. The Senator from 
Mississippi is now on the floor. He is the manager of the portion of 
the bill dealing with the Department of Agriculture, and I think he can 
probably better deal with that question.
  Madam President, the Senator from Arizona has asked a question about 
a rescission included on page 7 of the House committee report with 
respect to the construction of the swine research center and has asked 
for its justification.
  I wonder if the Senator from Mississippi would prefer to answer that 
question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy 
to point out that in this part of the bill, there were several changes 
in the funding that the House had included in its legislation. There 
are a number of buildings and facilities and accounts. If I remember, 
this is in the Agricultural Research Service part of the bill. I am 
operating on memory now. I was watching the television monitor when I 
[[Page S4793]] heard the Senator from Arizona pose the question about 
this facility in Iowa. My recollection is that the House rescinded 
funds for this project and we rejected this proposal and instead took 
funds not needed for another project. The House bill also recommended 
funding for a number of projects in the Cooperative State Research 
Service buildings and facilities account be rescinded, and we decided 
not to go along with any of them as a class.
  The reason for it is, No. 1, I do not think the administration 
requested those rescissions. No. 2, to go back through all of the CSRS 
buildings and facilities projects halfway through the year and try to 
pick out a few to cancel, in effect, or rescind funds at this time in 
the year, would have imposed quite a task on the committee in terms of 
reevaluating all projects in that bill.
  We looked at the overall approach as one where, first of all, the 
administration's request for rescissions totaling $142 million in the 
Public Law 480 accounts struck us as something that we should recommend 
for approval. The House recommended only a $20 million reduction in 
funding for title III. Our recommendation is for a $142 million 
reduction, which is what the administration requested.
  We tried to make an independent judgment based on the facts as we 
understood them. Our committee had already looked at this proposal for 
the research facility in Iowa and decided it was meritorious. The 
committee had agreed, the Senate had agreed, the House had agreed, and 
the President had signed the bill appropriating the funds for it.
  We decided not to go back and make a second guess at whether or not 
the House was justified in its decision. We decided to leave it for a 
discussion with the House in conference. We will review that in 
conference. I will be interested in hearing what the arguments are. I 
have consulted with Senator Grassley of Iowa. He told me he strongly 
recommended the continuation of this funding, and I agreed with him.
  So that is, in a nutshell, the process by which I reviewed that 
account and decided to recommend to the Appropriations Committee that 
we not agree with the House on that rescission.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
  Mr. GORTON. Did not the Senator from Mississippi inform the entire 
Appropriations Committee that total rescissions falling within his 
jurisdiction were, by percentage, either the highest, or one of the 
highest, of any of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee?
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I do recall that we are 
recommending more outlay savings than the House, by far. Almost three 
times as much in outlay savings will be realized from the 
recommendations under the agriculture and related agencies title of 
this bill than will be achieved if the Senate had gone along with all 
of the recommendations of the House.
  So we have differences of opinion. They recommended a rescission of 
all of the funds appropriated for the Farmers' Home Section 515 rural 
rental housing program. We decided not to do that. We refused to go 
along with that. The administration did not request a rescission of 
those funds, and we thought that it would be unfair to stop in the 
middle of the year and eliminate all the money that was going to be 
available for that rural housing program. It is important in many parts 
of the country.
  So I will say to my distinguished friend from Arizona, he can go 
through this bill and pick and choose and isolate and identify specific 
areas where we disagreed with the House. We did not rubberstamp what 
the House has suggested. We seriously and carefully considered every 
provision in the House bill, however. But we came to some different 
conclusions. We think we brought our best efforts to bear on that 
challenge and, in a responsible way, made recommendations to the full 
committee on appropriations.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I understand and appreciate the hard 
work of the Senator from Mississippi and the Members of the 
Appropriations Committee. But it is also the right and, in my view, the 
responsibility of those of us who also are Members of this body to look 
at these provisions. And as I discussed before the Senator from 
Mississippi came on the floor, when there are billions of dollars 
appropriated for defense that have no relation to defense, and when I 
see things like--for example, included is a recommendation for 
rescission which is only $93,000. But if the Appropriations Committee 
did not see fit to rescind it for the National Potato Trade and Tariff 
Association, then obviously there is a certain degree of cynicism about 
some of the things that I see in the appropriations bills.
  Also, the House recommended that the funding for certain agricultural 
research centers be rescinded. Among them were a poultry science 
facility, alternative pest control center, a chemistry building, 
aquatic research facility, center for applied aquaculture, science 
facility, southeast research station, food science facility, and the 
list goes on and on--a plant bioscience facility, $3 million for a 
botanical garden.
  I suggest very respectfully to my colleagues that if the State wants 
to build a botanical garden, I do not see why they should not build it 
themselves. A grain storage research extension center. A horse science 
and teaching center--that is one I do not understand at all. A horse 
science and teaching center. I do not know if we are teaching horses or 
if we are learning about the science of horses. Either way, I think we 
have probably explored that issue fairly extensively in the last couple 
hundred years. A biocontainment facility; a wheat research facility; an 
environmental simulation facility.
  It all has to do, Madam President, with the role of Government. Do we 
spend money on these projects, such as a horse science and teaching 
center and a center for applied agriculture? Do we allow the State and 
local governments to do it, or does the Federal Government do it?
  If the Federal Government does it and that is the judgment of this 
body, that is fine. But then I have an additional problem because what 
we have done is left programs like this in and taken other programs 
such as native Americans out.
  That is the subject of my amendment.


                 Amendment No. 424 to Amendment No. 420

         (Purpose: To make adjustments to certain rescissions)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 424 to amendment No. 420.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue reading the amendment.

       On page 4, line 20, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,178,000''.
       On page 5, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


                        buildings and facilities

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-330 and other Acts, $20,994,000 are rescinded.
       On page 19, line 12, strike ``$11,350,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,250,000''.
       On page 19, strike lines 20 through 23.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment would rescind over $12.5 
million for construction of a swine research facility and nearly $21 
million which are construction feasibility study funds not yet 
obligated.
  The House rescissions bill removed these funds. The Senate bill under 
consideration would restore these funds.
  Madam President, this amendment would also restore funding for the $5 
million to Indian programs. I would describe those Indian programs 
which have been cut which I seek to be restored.
  I cannot improve upon the case made in the House committee report for 
cutting $12.678 million, and I described earlier the House report for 
the construction of a swine research center. Additional cost 
requirements stated in the report for this facility are about $13 
million. They also mention the cost of about $10 million annually to 
operate.
   [[Page S4794]] It also points out that there is swine research being 
conducted in at least 13 different Federal facilities at a cost of over 
$26 million.
  On a Cooperative State Research Services building facilities program, 
the House report notes that there is a current backlog of $400 million 
to complete facility construction projects already in the pipeline.
  The bill provides for 15 new feasibility studies and this amendment, 
which would conform with the House bill, would rescind all funds not 
yet obligated and stop all feasibility studies.
  I have two reasons for offering the amendment. First, I support the 
Senate rescission bill that meets the House-passed rescission bill. In 
light of the need for significant deficit reduction, I believe the 
Senate can and hopefully should be able to reach the goal.
  Second, the cutting of $12.7 million and $20.1 million low-priority 
projects permits the Senate to restore $5 million in Indian programs 
rescinded by the Senate bill, which Indian programs I believe are not 
appropriate for rescission.
  Over the years I have served on the Committee on Indian Affairs, I 
have come to the painful yet very certain conclusion that Indian 
programs have been the last to be funded and the first to be cut.
  Last month, the Congressional Research Service provided the Committee 
on Indian Affairs with a study that showed in graphic form how the 
disparity in per capita Federal expenditures between Indians and non-
Indians, which first became negative for Indians in 1985, has steadily 
worsened since then, and further deteriorates in the fiscal year 1995 
enacted appropriations.
  Consequently, in recent weeks, as the 1995 rescission efforts have 
quickened in Congress, I have told Indian tribes on every occasion that 
I believe many of the proposed rescissions on Indian programs are a bad 
idea and that I oppose them.
  The Senate bill already adequately addresses some of the House 
proposed cuts of tribal court funds, the Indian business development 
grants, and an amount sufficient to permit construction of the Indian 
Museum Cultural Center to proceed.
  I strongly support efforts to maintain funding for these accounts so 
long as they are offsetting reductions from lower priority programs. In 
addition, I believe there are other lower priority projects or programs 
that should be cut, rather than the $5 million in several BIA accounts.
  The amendment would restore $5 million in Indian funds and rescind 
and offset $12.7 million from the swine research facility. The $5 
million is comprised of four items in the BIA operation of Indian 
programs and Indian direct loan program accounts.
  The Indian self-determination fund: These indirect cost fundings are 
currently needed by tribes under self-determination and self-governance 
contracts and compacts to administer formerly Federal activities.
  Last year, Congress passed Public Law 103-413 to encourage expanded 
tribal assumption of BIA programs as the Federal bureaucracy is 
downsized. I am concerned the cuts will deter expanded contracting and 
compacting. In addition, for the past 2 years, tribes have borne 
unreimbursed shortfalls in indirect costs because tribes spent funds 
under cost plans approved by the Interior Department inspector general, 
but later could not collect reimbursement from the BIA because funding 
had not kept pace.
  The second program is a community reservation economic development 
grant of $600,000. Federal economic development funds, properly 
administered and distributed, are absolutely vital to restoring the 
grossly underdeveloped physical, economic, and social infrastructure of 
American Indian and Alaska Native communities.
  This important program was begun in 1992 as a 5-year pilot program 
when 34 tribal proposals were competitively selected from 148 tribal 
applications. Most grants are used as seed funds to leverage additional 
funding. The grants ranged from a low of $27,000. Fiscal year 1995 
total enacted level for this program is $5.945 million.
  Indian rights protection, $500,000. In the context of the 
Department's vast trust responsibility to protect, maintain, and manage 
Indian resources, these funds offer only minimal assistance to support 
reservation and native community level efforts to protect property 
rights.
  Included in this account are funds for reserved water rights 
negotiation/litigation and settlement expenses, funds to uphold the 
directives protecting native allotments prescribed in the Alaskan 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and funds to fulfill the 
investigation and certification mandates of the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act.
  The last program would be the Indian Direct Loan Program of $1.9 
million. This account provides loans to tribes, Indian organizations, 
and individual Indian for-profit enterprises under the Indian Financing 
Act.
  Fiscal year 1995 total enacted level for this account is $2.479 
million, which through a subsidy arrangement is expected to leverage up 
to $10 million in direct loans this year, unless rescinded.
  Madam President, I absolutely believe we must place short constraints 
on appropriations in this and following fiscal years. The amendment 
would restore less than one-half of the Indian program rescissions 
proposed in the Senate bill, and it would make offsetting cuts in the 
construction of the swine research facility in the cooperative State 
Research Service buildings and facilities account.
  These Indian programs are an extremely important expression of the 
solemn government-to-government relationship the United States and this 
Congress has with American Indian and Alaskan Native tribal 
governments.
  I believe we can achieve significant cuts in fiscal year 1995 
spending, and we can do so even as we carry out our obligation to 
ensure that the lowest priority projects are cut first before Indian 
projects.
  I want to point out again, Madam President, I am seeking a 
restoration of approximately half of the Indian cuts that were made in 
Indian programs in this rescission bill.
  If we look at the cuts that were made in Indian programs as a portion 
of the entire budget, we will find, as usual, that the cuts in Indian 
programs is a much higher percentage than any other cuts, rescissions, 
that have been made.
  I am seeking to restore four vital programs that are important to the 
well-being of Native Americans and the fulfillment of our solemn treaty 
obligations.
  I might add, Madam President, having been down here on numerous 
occasions and embarked on efforts like these, I probably will not win 
this amendment, this vote. I probably will lose it. But it is very 
difficult for me to go back to the native Americans and tell them that 
I did not at least try to restore the funds that I believe are 
necessary to try to help the one group of Americans whose conditions 
are worse than any other group of Americans.
  I will not recite the statistics concerning diabetes, alcoholism, 
child abuse, and all the other horrible and graphic statistics that 
afflict Indian country, because I have done that before and I am sure I 
will probably do that in the future.
  I feel that in keeping with my obligation to them as chairman of the 
Indian Affairs Committee, I cannot, in good conscience, not seek a 
restoration of the funding for at least those most vital programs.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I question the ruling of the Chair on 
the request for the seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is now a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, as the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona has pointed out, this amendment has two quite separate and 
distinct parts. And of course, the arguments relating to those two 
separate and distinct parts are quite separate from one another as 
well.
  The Senator from Arizona has fought a long and often lonely fight 
with respect to many items and many appropriations bills. He was quite 
eloquent, just a few moments ago, on the misuse of the defense 
appropriations bill for nondefense items, and went through quite a 
number of them. Yet this 
[[Page S4795]] amendment does not deal with an offset from the defense 
budget for nondefense items. But, for some reason or another, it takes 
on the agricultural appropriations bill which, as has already been 
pointed out by the distinguished chairman of that subcommittee, has in 
it an amount of rescissions far greater than those proposed by the 
House and I think proportionately as high as any portion of this 
rescissions bill. So let me speak very, very briefly to those 
agricultural projects because I know the Senators, both from Iowa and 
Mississippi, will do so themselves.
  At least a significant number of the Cooperative State Research 
Service proposals here are for money for facilities which are in the 
process of being constructed, and where the removal of the money might 
well cause a cessation of those construction projects.
  It is, I am certain, for exactly that reason the Senator from 
Mississippi did not wish to go along with the House of Representatives. 
Because there will be differences on each one of these issues, a 
conference committee may well determine that some of the studies for 
new projects, which might be very expensive, should be dismissed--
should be eventually rescinded. But the Senator from Mississippi----
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. Did not wish to deal just with those items. He was faced 
with a set of rescissions at varying levels of study and of actual 
construction. He and the Senator from Iowa can deal with other matters, 
but the swine research facility is one that will be before a conference 
committee along with all the other cuts and reductions, where members 
of the Subcommittee on Agriculture can determine a priority order of 
rescissions, designed to meet the very real goal of this rescissions 
bill.
  I think sometime during the course of this afternoon, not only 
Members, but the general public may have lost track of the 
extraordinary nature of this bill. I do not believe there is a Senator 
alive who has dealt in the middle of a fiscal year with the rescission 
of so many billions of dollars as this one does, in order to make at 
least a modest downpayment on balancing our Federal budget. It seems to 
me the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture deserves a great 
deal of credit for being willing to rescind a wide range of 
appropriations which, just a few months ago, he felt were appropriate.
  Let me also speak, of course, to the other side of the equation and 
that is the $5 million restoration for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
concerns. Unlike the agricultural section of this bill, where the 
Senate rescissions are greater than the House rescissions in total for 
Indian purposes in general, the Senate rescissions are less and fewer 
than the House rescissions. When I, as the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Interior, was faced with a table of what the House had done, it had, 
I must say, fewer rescissions than we ended up with for the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
  But the No. 1 goal of those who were concerned with and sensitive to 
Indian affairs, Madam President, was not the particular line items for 
the BIA, which, of course, is bitterly criticized by many of its 
purported beneficiaries, but was directed at the total rescission of 
all money for the National Museum of the American Indian--two 
facilities which have been planned and promised, one storage facility 
in Suitland and a museum on The Mall here in Washington, DC.
  Another part of this bill for the Smithsonian Institution restores 
almost $20 million for this year's progress in the creation of that 
National Museum for the American Indian. It seemed to me in making that 
restoration we needed some balance from other Indian appropriations, 
and for that reason, many of those which are the object of this 
amendment were included. But the total of all of the additional 
rescissions for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Madam President, is 
nowhere near the amount restored for the museum.
  Granted, the beneficiaries are different. There is no question about 
that. But we did not go dollar for dollar any more than the Senator 
from Mississippi did. He rescinded more dollars than he restored. In 
our case we rescinded fewer dollars than we restored, in the broad 
sense of the term--matters of great interest to the native American 
communities of this country. In fact, of the $5 million which the 
Senator from Arizona seeks to restore, $1.9 million, almost 40 percent, 
is for a program which the President in his budget for next year has 
recommended zero dollars. So all we are doing here is anticipating the 
recommendations of the President of the United States--these are Indian 
direct loans--because there is another guarantee, there is a guaranteed 
loan program for Indians. And in each of the other cases, we are 
dealing--which is not the case with all of these agricultural 
rescissions--with unobligated funds in smaller amounts than had 
originally been intended and in much smaller amounts than the otherwise 
total of rescissions for Indian matters.
  So I suppose it is possible to say that in one or more of the four 
objects of restoration here, we might have done a better job. But I 
know I have been approached by many Senators from my part of the 
country, as has the Senator from Mississippi, protesting individual 
rescissions while in general terms, as is the case with the Senator 
from Arizona, feeling that, if anything, we have not cut out enough 
spending overall. But the spending that we have not cut off overall 
almost always seems to be spending in an area which is not of much 
interest to that particular Senator; and the areas which are of 
interest are matters of great sacrifice.
  So I hope we have been reasonably sensitive in this case, to native 
American concerns. I know that we have been more generous to them than 
was the House of Representatives. And I know that the Senator from 
Mississippi was tougher on agriculture, overall, than was the House of 
Representatives. I do not think that we should, by this amendment, 
exacerbate or make worse differences which already exist.
  So, Madam President, with regret I oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN.  Madam President, I will be brief. First, I hope the 
Senator from Washington will note these funds do not go to the BIA; 
they are not BIA programs. They go direct to the tribes. I think that 
is an important distinction, particularly after he mentions the well-
justified criticism of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  Second, if the Senator is correct, that much of this money has 
already been spent and allocated, I do not quite understand the 
statement in the House bill that says there is a backlog of $400 
million, necessary to complete facilities already in the pipeline; so 
that is of some interest. And fiscal year 1995 provides for 15 new 
feasibility studies. According again to the House report, the 
Agricultural Research Service currently conducts swine research in at 
least 13 different facilities at a cost of over $26 million, and this 
facility would cost $10 million annually to operate.
  The Senator from Washington alluded to something about programs in 
individuals' areas or States. I would point out to him these Indian 
programs are national programs. They have no particular affiliation 
with my State.
  I do not intend to drag out this amendment or the debate. I know that 
the Senator from Iowa will, with his usual passion and articulate 
presentation, defend this program, and I will, before he even speaks, 
say I respect and admire his continued commitment to his State and 
agriculture and how important it is to his State as well as that of 
swine research.
  So I do not intend to extend this debate, and I appreciate the time 
of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, careful consideration was given to the 
formation of the National Swine Research Center.
  A national peer panel recommended the establishment of the Swine 
Research Center because the needed research was not being conducted in 
any other State or Federal laboratory nationwide.
  The program of research is not duplicative.
  The mission of the research center is to develop technology to ensure 
that the U.S. pork industry operates as an environmentally sound and 
efficient animal production system.
   [[Page S4796]] It will help maintain and increase the 
competitiveness and efficiency of U.S. pork production and marketing.
  This is the answer which the Agricultural Research Service of the 
USDA gave in response to a question from the House Agriculture 
Appropriations Committee.
  Concerns expressed by Members of the House of Representatives have 
not been about the facility itself or the research that it will 
conduct.
  Their concerns have been with the outyear funding of research.
  The ARS and the pork producers are currently working on this and are 
making a good faith attempt to consolidate swine research programs in 
the future to reduce program funding requirements.
  Pork production is on the increase in many States.
  The research at this center will help pork producers nationwide.
  ARS has no swine research projects in the areas of waste management, 
marketing, economics, housing, management, human health, or swine 
health, welfare, and behavior in production systems.
  Permit me to try to answer the key questions about the National Swine 
Research Center.
         national swine research center facility justification

  What national strategic issues are associated with pork production?
  Conservative projections indicate that the United States, in an 
environment of trade liberalization and increased demand, will have an 
opportunity to triple its pork exports, currently 262,000 tons), in the 
next 10 to 15 years. At that level, the impact would be the creation of 
36,000 U.S. jobs and $1.1 billion in income, U.S. input-output model. 
Other parts of the world, including areas in Europe and South America, 
are poised to take advantage of this opportunity.
  What are the barriers to growth in U.S. pork production and pork 
exports?
  Major barriers to growth in U.S. pork production are related to 
manure management/nutrient utilization, odor control, water quality, 
employee health, animal well-being, and housing and food safety 
questions associated with increased pork production. Current USDA 
facilities are not designed to research these questions; nor are they 
staffed by scientists with the expertise to study them; nor is it 
feasible to convert them for the type of research the industry urgently 
needs.
  What are the social concerns associated with increased pork 
production?
  Our society places a high value on environmental quality, water 
quality, protection from odors associated with swine production, worker 
health, and animal well-being. At a 1994 international meeting of 
experts on odor perception and odor production, scientists agreed that 
the difficulty of obtaining objective measures of odors was a serious 
problem for the swine industry.
  We must develop systems that allow U.S. producers to be competitive 
while meeting our Nation's social and environmental expectations.
  How can these problems be solved?
  A national group, including representatives from major pork-producing 
States and the public and private sectors, examined the opportunities 
and threats facing U.S. pork production. These group recommended the 
establishment of the National Swine Research Center, concluding that a 
unique new swine research center was required to provide the conditions 
for addressing complex, systems-based issues of critical importance to 
the survival and growth of the Nation's pork production sector.
  Why should a public institution conduct this research?
  The center will focus on the type of research that is best suited to 
public institutions. Private sector incentives to conduct such research 
are inadequate; advances are likely to be widely useful within the 
United States; and results will provide a national strategic advantage 
in pork production with positive impacts on rural development, the 
national economy, and the Nation's balance of trade.


                        research program summary

  Research at the National Swine Research Center will focus on 
environmental quality, including water and air quality, utilization of 
manure, and housing designs to improve conditions for rearing swine and 
preventing human health problems.
  In addition to areas of research already described in this document, 
proposed projects include:
  Development of manure-based soil amendments for urban use,
  Separation/concentration/drying/fermentation technologies for manure,
  Methods to store and handle manure,
  Production of biomass energy crops with organic fertilizer, and
  Production of methane from manure.
  The center will be the source of creative new research on a wide 
range of production, health, environmental, and socioeconomic issues 
that must be resolved to support U.S. producers' bid to claim a 
substantial share of growth in the world market for pork.
  Finally, this is a list of current major ARS swine research projects:

                   USDA-ARS Program on Swine Research

       In FY 1995, $26.1 million was appropriated for ARS to 
     conduct swine research at 13 ARS locations. The areas of 
     swine research currently pursued are: foreign animal 
     diseases; domestic animal diseases; reproduction; food 
     safety; nutrition; systems; parasites; stress; pork quality; 
     genetics; and growth. ARS has no swine projects in the areas 
     of waste management, marketing, economics, housing, 
     management, human health, or swine health, welfare, and 
     behavior in production systems.


            Current Major Areas of Research on Swine in ARS

       Genetics (Beltsville, MD, Clay Center, NE) Development of 
     genomic map; identify genes associated with disease 
     resistance; identify animals with superior reproductive 
     capacity.
       Reproduction (Athens, GA, Beltsville, MD) Sorting of male 
     and female sperm cells, cryopreservation of gametes and 
     embryos; neuroendocrine regulation of reproduction; genetic 
     and physiological factors that influence litter size.
       Nutrition and Growth (Athens, GA, Beltsville, MD, Clay 
     Center, NE, Columbia, MO, Fayetteville, AR) Neuroendocrine 
     and bioregulation of physiological and genetic factors that 
     influence fat and protein metabolism; endocrine control 
     studies to increase the lean and reduce the fat in pork.
       Domestic Diseases (Ames, IA, Peoria, IL) Viral-induced 
     reproductive diseases; enteric diseases; bacterial and 
     microbiological factors that influence the level of disease 
     and production efficiency
       Foreign Animal Disease (Greenport, NY) Foot-and-mouth 
     disease; African swine fever.
       Parasites (Beltsville, MD) Identification of swine 
     resistant to parasites; epidemiology and vaccines; diagnostic 
     methods for trichinosis and toxoplasmosis.
       Pork Quality and Stress (Beltsville, MD, Clay Center, NE, 
     Columbia, MO, New Orleans, LA, W. Lafayette, IN) Improve baby 
     pig survival by reducing stress and environmental factors; 
     breed and diet effect on quantity, quality, and composition 
     of pork; metabolic regulation of fat synthesis.
       Food Safety (Albany, CA, College Station, TX, Clay Center, 
     NE, Wyndmoor, PA) Rapid test to identify drug and antibiotic 
     residues; microbiological safety of port carcasses and pork 
     products; control of pathogenic and spoilage bacteria on 
     meat.

  I do feel the managers of this bill want to get to a vote soon. I 
believe with the forceful response that the Senator from Washington 
just gave as to the wrongness of the amendment by the Senator from 
Arizona, plus the defense of this decision of the subcommittee on this 
specific swine research center, I do not need to add a great deal to 
how unjustified the amendment is that is offered at this point.
  I will simply make a couple points, one in regard to the Federal 
Government's involvement in agriculture research. It has been a policy 
of the Federal Government since 1862, with the establishment of the 
land grant universities, to have the Federal Government very deeply 
involved in agricultural research and education to enhance the 
productivity of our farms and to enhance the quality of the product of 
our farms. That research is much more sophisticated today than it was 
132 years ago. That research must still continue to go on to keep our 
agricultural industry competitive.
  It happens that there is a research facility proposed at Iowa State 
University. There are swine research facilities located at other 
universities, or research centers. The one established at Iowa State 
University is not duplicative. I have an official response from ARS on 
that that I am going to read in closing.
  It should not be surprising to anybody that the Iowa State University 
would be very deeply involved in agriculture research in the first 
place and even specializing to a considerable extent in swine research 
because my State is first in the production of corn, 
[[Page S4797]] my State is either first or second to Illinois in the 
production of soybeans, and we are No. 1, way beyond any other State, 
in the production of pork. One out of every four pigs in America reside 
in my State. We are a massive pork producing State. And Iowa State 
University is right in the middle of it. So nobody should be surprised 
whatsoever if there is a determination made by a national organization, 
the Congress, following up on proposals by outstanding research groups 
in America that we need to do specific research in a specific aspect of 
the swine industry that might be located at Iowa State University.
  That is the history of agricultural research. I wish to speak to a 
specific point, and I am just going to read a short statement on this 
point, about the suggestion by the Senator from Arizona that there is 
so much swine research already, why do you need another swine research 
facility?
  Well, the simple answer to that is the different specializations of 
the different facilities around the United States. I could give a long 
list, but I will not bother to do so, of what research has been done. 
But a Congressman from my State, Mr. Latham, had an opportunity to ask 
the Agricultural Research Service this question:

       The National Swine Research Center--

  And that is the one that the Senator from Arizona proposes to delete. 
I wish to start over again. Mr. Latham asked the question:

       The National Swine Research Center has been criticized on 
     the basis that it will conduct duplicative research. What is 
     your opinion on the research mission of the center and do you 
     think it is duplicative?

  This is the response from the Agricultural Research Service of the 
USDA to the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee:

       A national peer panel recommended--

  I wish to stop just a minute. The reason I wish to emphasize, ``A 
national peer panel recommended,'' this is not some Congressman or 
Senator getting something for their particular State. This was a 
studied approach.

       A national peer panel recommended the establishment of the 
     National Swine Research Center because the needed research 
     was not being conducted at any other State or Federal 
     laboratory nationwide. The program of research will not be 
     duplicative. The mission of the National Swine Research 
     Center is to develop technology to ensure that the U.S. pork 
     industry operates as an environmentally sound and efficient 
     animal production system. It will help maintain and increase 
     the competitiveness and efficiency of the U.S. pork 
     production and market.

  I hope those are adequate responses to the supposed justification of 
the Senator from Arizona for this deletion so that my colleagues will 
not rescind this project and that we will move forward.
  If we make a decision to move forward, I wish to emphasize what the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi said. We are only going back to 
conference with the House and take a second look at this. My judgment 
is a second look based upon the recommendation of a national peer panel 
will show that this is not duplicative and it is needed, particularly 
in the area of cleaning up the environment and having an 
environmentally sound pork producing system; that this will move 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise very briefly to support the 
position of the appropriators here and oppose the amendment. I do it on 
the basis the Senator from Washington pointed out, and that is some of 
these projects have been under way or are in the midst of getting under 
way. The one I have particular interest in is the environmental 
simulator that is designed to study the aspects of hazardous materials 
moving through soil. And it does it in a very abbreviated way. It is 
something that pertains to what we are seeking in this country. And so, 
Mr. President, I rise briefly to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself strongly with 
the comments made by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, 
regarding this pending amendment. I think he hit the nail right on the 
head when he read the letter from the Agricultural Research Service 
regarding the importance of this swine research center and the fact it 
is not duplicative of other research and facilities. The kind of 
research that is going to be done there is not being done anywhere else 
in the country.
  There has been a lot of comment made on that this kind of research is 
done elsewhere. Quite frankly, it is not.
  Mr. President, I understand the desire of the Senator from Arizona to 
put more money into two accounts funding American Indian programs. I am 
not fully familiar with them. I am sure he has some legitimate 
arguments why that funding is necessary.
  I would suggest, however, that the Senator from Arizona has gone 
after wrong accounts to get the money. Because he has gone after some 
research projects that are important to us nationally; research 
projects that are important not only for the producers in this country 
but for our consumers also.
  We have a long, proud history of Federal support for research in this 
country, especially agricultural research, going clear back to Abraham 
Lincoln's time.
  That support for agricultural research is a key factor providing us 
an abundance of the most wholesome, most varied food at the lowest 
price of any nation. About 8 cents of every dollar of disposable income 
an American family has goes to buy the food they consume at home. You 
cannot match that figure anywhere in the world. We have not only the 
most variety and the largest quantity of foods, but they are the 
healthiest and the cheapest.
  These benefits have been brought about, in substantial part, by the 
agricultural research that has been done in this country. A lot of this 
research is not the easiest to understand. There is a lot of 
sophisticated work being done to improve agricultural productivity, to 
expand markets and uses for agricultural commodities, to improve the 
competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in world markets, and also to 
reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment while at the same 
time maintaining productivity.
  This is no time to be cutting this vital agricultural research. 
Speaking only for myself, I believe we are not putting enough into 
agricultural research as it is. For example, USDA formula funds for 
land grant universities have been essentially flat in dollar amounts 
since 1983, meaning universities have lost 20 to 25 percent of their 
research purchasing power since 1983.
  Agricultural research is a good investment. Studies have shown that 
the return on investment in agriculture research has been in the area 
of about 20 to 25 percent.
  And let us keep in mind that a relatively small share of Federal 
research and development funding actually goes to agricultural research 
and development. According to the National Science Foundation, for 
1994, only 2 percent of the total Federal research and development 
dollars went to agriculture. Of the total Federal dollars for basic 
research, only 4 percent went to agriculture.
  So again, while these proposed cuts may seem small in the magnitude 
of the billions of dollars we are talking about, they are large when 
you compare them to the relatively small amount of actual research 
dollars that go to agriculture.
  As I said, this research is sophisticated work; it is highly 
specialized. And that can sometimes make it easy to attack or to poke 
fun at.
  Well, there was even a television show one night that referred to 
funding for the Swine Research Center, very jokingly saying, ``Well, 
this is the ultimate pork, isn't it, Federal dollars going to pork 
research?''
  Well, I suppose it got a lot of laughs and people who did not know 
what it was about can laugh about it.
  But the fact is, the pork industry in America is no laughing matter. 
There are over 200,000 pork producers in this country. The pork 
industry generates over $66 billion in economic activity and supports 
about 764,000 jobs directly and indirectly and adds nearly $26 billion 
of value to production inputs. Annual farm sales of hogs are usually 
more than $11 billion, and retail sales of pork are more than $30 
billion each year.
   [[Page S4798]] In fact, farm receipts from sales of hogs place the 
industry in fourth or fifth place among all agricultural commodities 
that we produce in this country. So it is a very important industry. It 
is very important for our producers. It is important for our consumers. 
It is important for our Nation.
  Some of the important issues that will be researched at the Swine 
Research Center include how pork production can be made more efficient 
and how we can solve some of the environmental problems of pork 
production.
  The research will include studies by soil, plant, and animal 
scientists into enhancing both the competitiveness and the 
environmental soundness of the pork industry.
  There is currently, as my colleague from Iowa pointed out, no other 
State or Federal facility capable of addressing the unique research 
planned for this center.
  The Agricultural Research Service has identified this project as a 
high priority. It is the result of joint planning and continuing 
efforts by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, the National Pork 
Producers Council, Iowa State University, and the Iowa Pork Producers 
Association.
  As Senator Grassley pointed out, there was peer review, a national 
peer review, not just regional or State.
  So for these reasons, it is important that we continue our commitment 
to agricultural research in general and to the Cooperative State 
Research Service and to the Agricultural Research Service.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point 
in the Record a fact sheet from the National Pork Producers Council, 
entitled ``A Profile of Today's Pork Industry.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   A Profile of Today's Pork Industry

       The U.S. pork industry is experiencing unprecedented 
     growth. More pork was produced in the U.S. in 1992 than ever 
     before, and 1993 was nearly as large. Over 17 billion pounds 
     will again be processed from just under 93 million hogs in 
     1994.
       The economic impact of the industry on rural America is 
     immense. Farm receipts from hogs place the industry in 4th or 
     5th position [depending on the year] among all farm 
     commodities. Annual farm sales usually exceed $11 billion, 
     while the retail value of pork sold to consumers exceeds $30 
     billion.
       And the pork industry benefits more than just farmers! Pork 
     production means jobs and economic opportunity for thousands 
     of rural communities. The ``value added'' nature of pork 
     provides employment well beyond the farm. Based on a 1993 
     study by researchers at Iowa State University, the U.S. pork 
     industry is responsible for over $66 billion dollars in total 
     domestic economic activity. Through direct, indirect and 
     induced effects, the pork industry supports 764,080 jobs and 
     adds nearly $26 billion dollars of value to production 
     inputs. Given these figures, the pork industry's major 
     contribution to local, state and national economies and 
     governments (through tax revenues) is obvious.
       Approximately 200,000 pork producers are in business today 
     compared to nearly three million in 1950. Farms have grown in 
     size--nearly 80 percent of the hogs are grown on farms 
     producing 1000 or more hogs per year. These operations, which 
     are often more technically sophisticated, are still 
     predominantly individual family farms.
       The geographic location of pork production is shifting as 
     well. While the traditional Corn Belt represents the 
     overwhelming share of production, growth is also occurring in 
     ``nontraditional'' hog states such as Texas, Colorado, and 
     Oklahoma. North Carolina, which ranked 14th in pork 
     production 30 years ago, now ranks 2nd among states.
       The global market offers tremendous growth potential for 
     U.S. pork producers. With many of the world's most cost-
     efficient producers, the U.S. pork industry still only sells 
     about 2 percent of total production overseas. Yet pork is the 
     world's ``meat of choice'' by far, with over 40 percent share 
     of the world's meat protein market.
       The National Pork Producers Council is the only national 
     membership organization representing pork producers 
     exclusively. The ``Pork. The Other White Meat'' promotion is 
     well known. Funded by the national pork checkoff and paid for 
     by producers, it is credited with having a major impact in 
     improving pork's consumer image and helping improve pork 
     demand. The checkoff also funds important research projects 
     to improve pork's nutritional profile, overall quality and 
     price.

  Mr. HARKIN. Again, Mr. President, while I understand the desire of 
the Senator from Arizona to put more money into programs he feels very 
strongly about, this is not the time to turn our backs on the important 
agricultural research being done all over this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment.
  The distinguished Senator from Arizona has agreed it can be done by 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the McCain amendment.
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 424) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to use a portion of my leader's 
time.


                          ____________________