[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13713-S13715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
the managers of the bill for the increase that they have given to the 
WIC Program. I think the WIC Program is an outstanding program, and I 
think it is worthwhile. Its value has been evidenced by the fact that 
the distinguished managers of the bill have given it a very nice 
increase for the upcoming year.
  So I want to thank the senior Senator from Mississippi and the senior 
Senator from Arkansas for the additions to the WIC Program which they 
provided in this legislation.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator please 
withhold?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me just thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island for his generous comments and his support for the provisions of 
the bill which he described. It is very difficult in this time of 
diminishing access to funds under our allocation and budget resolution 
to keep this caseload up to the existing level. It has been done with 
the full cooperation of the other members of the subcommittee.
  We recognize that it is an important program. It is a program that 
saves money, I think, in terms of health care costs and learning 
deficiencies that would occur were it not for the proper nutrition at 
these ages.
  So I appreciate very much the Senator noticing the hard work that was 
put in on this subject.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what the WIC Program is, for those who do 
not know, it is a nutrition program, as the distinguished senior 
Senator from Mississippi said, a nutrition program for women, infants, 
and children.
  Furthermore, invariably, at least in my State, it takes place in a 
setting where you might say it is one-stop shopping, where a mother can 
come and her infant child will be cared for and, in addition, can get 
some nutrition advice from experts.
  As the distinguished Senator from Mississippi said, this is really 
proven out to be a money saver in the long run. If we can keep these 
infants healthy and get them off to a good start, savings to the Nation 
in the form of medical care are very, very significant in the long run.
  So I am happy this was able to be worked out the way it was.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we were successful in getting Senators to 
cooperate in identifying the amendments that remain to be offered to 
this bill. We are prepared now to seek unanimous consent to limit the 
amendments on the bill to those which we will read. These have been 
cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 


[[Page S 13714]]
remaining amendments in order to H.R. 1976, other than the pending 
amendments; that they be offered in the first or second-degree; if a 
committee amendment still remains to be amended, any first-degree 
amendment be subject to relevant second degrees:
  A Stevens budget for Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources 
amendment; a managers' package; two Cochran relevant amendments; a 
McCain funding for travel colleges; Domenici on scoring; Abraham on 
advisory committees; Senator Bingaman requiring USDA energy savings 
initiatives; Senators Boxer and Feinstein on chickens, fresh and frozen 
regulations; Senator Bradley, two relevant amendments; Senator Bryan, 
one to eliminate the Market Promotion Program and three relevant 
amendments; Senator Bumpers, two relevant amendments; Senator Byrd, 
relevant amendment; Senator Conrad, an amendment to establish a United 
States-Canadian review on water in North Dakota, ARS potato research 
laboratory and a relevant amendment; Senator Daschle, two relevant 
amendments; Senator Dodd, two relevant amendments; Senator Dorgan, a 
United States-Canadian study on Devil's Lake; Senator Feingold, a rural 
development amendment and one on research grants; Senator Harkin, food 
stamps amendment; Senator Kerrey, cotton disaster assistance funds 
amendment; Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, prohibit Market Promotion 
Program, mink export amendment, and a relevant amendment; Senator Kohl, 
two relevant amendments plus an amendment on rural development grants; 
Senator Lautenberg, two relevant amendments; Senator Leahy, an 
amendment to restore livestock feed assistance and an alternative 
development amendment; Senator Levin, Michigan special research grant 
amendment and a relevant amendment; Senator Reid, sugar program 
amendment and two relevant amendments.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have just been advised that Senator 
Ford would like to be added as having one relevant amendment. 
Otherwise, we have no objection to the list as read by the chairman.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask that my UC be amended, as pointed 
out by the Senator from Arkansas, and to add a Gorton relevant 
amendment, plus a Gregg relevant amendment and, as modified, I so ask 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
agreement, as modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager on the 
part of the minority for his cooperation and all Senators for 
cooperating to identify these amendments.
  Let me say now that if we called for the regular order, which I am 
prepared to do, as I understand it, the amendment of the Senator from 
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, which was offered earlier in the day by 
Senator Daschle on his behalf, would be the pending business. 
Parliamentary inquiry. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is No. 2688 offered by 
the Senator from Colorado to the committee amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is the amendment on the peanut subsidy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Just to refresh my own understanding of this, what was 
the question and answer of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi 
as to what the regular order was?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2686, the amendment offered by 
the Democratic leader on behalf of the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I call for the regular order.


                           Amendment No. 2686

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2686 is the pending question.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have not yielded the floor. Do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the purpose of coming to this amendment 
in the regular order is that this amendment was the first offered today 
by the distinguished Democratic leader on behalf of the Senator from 
Nebraska and the Senator from Wisconsin, with the understanding that it 
would be taken up later in the day. It is later in the day. We have 
told Senators that we would not have a vote on this bill until 5:30. We 
now have reached that point and beyond. I have spoken against the 
Kerrey amendment, and for the committee amendment, which is the subject 
of the Kerrey amendment.
  The Kerrey amendment seeks to strike the committee amendment which 
contains funds--$41 million--for disaster assistance for cotton 
producers, which have been hard hit this year by a massive infestation 
of beet army worms, tobacco budworms, and unusually dry weather, which 
has exacerbated a very difficult situation throughout the South and 
Southwest.
  I notice that the Senator from Nebraska has come to the floor now to 
speak to the amendment. I am prepared to yield the floor and permit 
whatever time he may need to discuss his amendment. I hope that we can 
then vote on his amendment, or a motion to table his amendment. I am 
prepared to move to table his amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, 
but I am not going to do that if he wants to speak to that amendment 
now.
  Before I yield for that purpose, I wonder if we can agree on a time 
certain, for the benefit of all Senators, on a motion to table the 
Kerrey amendment.
  I am hopeful that the Senator could agree to take no more than 10 or 
15 minutes. I think I spoke for about 10 minutes. Most Senators know 
what this is all about. If additional time is needed, I am happy to 
consider that, along with the interests of other Senators. I know 
Senators have made plans for other activities tonight. They thought 
they were going to vote at 5:30. I wonder if the Senator can tell us 
what his needs would be in terms of time to debate this amendment. I 
will be happy to yield to the Senator to respond, without losing my 
right to the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi, there are others who have told me they want to speak. I 
just arrived here. I am not sure how many others have actually come to 
speak in favor of this amendment. I personally can get by easily with 
10 or 15 minutes. I wonder if the Senator would mind making it 30 
minutes, and I will be prepared to yield it back if nobody else shows 
up. It may be necessary at this point, since some Members have been 
waiting and know what time the vote was going to be scheduled, to give 
them time to get here. As far as the amount of time I require 
personally to speak on this amendment, 10 or 15 minutes would be all I 
would need.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator. Let me see if this is suitable to 
Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent that we vote on or in relation to the Kerrey 
amendment at 6:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that unanimous-consent 
request?
  Is the time to be divided in the usual fashion? Does the Senator wish 
to specify a division of time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Under the usual form, and that no other amendment would 
be in order to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this is a fairly straightforward 
amendment. I must say I offer it with some reluctance. The 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi and the distinguished ranking 
member from Arkansas have done an excellent job with the agriculture 
appropriations bill and in staying open to suggestions and staying open 
to preferences of individual Members.
  However, this $41 million appropriation for cotton really does put us 
on a slippery slope, Mr. President. Last year, when we set in motion 
the enhanced crop insurance program, the promise was that crop 
insurance was to be to replace ad hoc disaster programs. That was the 
promise. If we begin today, less than a year later from putting that 
program into place, saying, well, here is a case we can make, there is 
no question--and I do not argue with the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi that the disaster and tragedy affecting cotton producers is 
meritorious. However, we said that instead of 

[[Page S 13715]]
ad hoc disaster, we were going to do crop insurance.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that if we begin with cotton, there 
will be amendments offered to do soybeans or corn or rice, or all sorts 
of things. We will get appeals, one after another. And those of us who 
have heard those appeals thus far have been able to say, no, I would 
like to go to the floor and offer an amendment on your behalf, I 
understand the disaster is serious; however, we are using crop 
insurance.
  We need to improve that program. It is not perfect. We nonetheless 
need to work with that program, rather than, at least for people like 
me, breaking a promise to taxpayers that we would not have both an ad 
hoc disaster payment and crop insurance.
  The details of the reallocation, Mr. President, are as follows: $35 
million of the $41 million would go into a rural community advancement 
program, which includes grants and loans for water and sewer 
improvements, rental housing, and other important rural development 
programs. The Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Mississippi 
have both spoken eloquently on the rather severe cuts we have in rural 
development in this bill. It is unavoidable. We can avoid a piece of 
that by enacting this amendment.
  Second, $4.5 million goes into the rural development loan fund 
intermediary lending program--an extremely successful program, one that 
has bipartisan support, Mr. President--that promotes rural economic 
development by making investment capital available, via a locally based 
nonprofit intermediary, to rural businesses that typically cannot 
obtain financing from conventional sources.
  Lastly, $1.5 million goes into rural technology and cooperative 
development grant programs, which provide funding to public bodies and 
nonprofit organizations to establish rural technology and cooperative 
developing networks nationwide to help improve economic conditions in 
rural America.
  Again, the amendment rests upon a belief that we should either do 
crop insurance or ad hoc disaster. Again, I do not challenge the 
meritorious nature of the cotton disaster. But I do believe, Mr. 
President, that it would be a terrible mistake for us to move away from 
crop insurance, back into this sort of dual thing where we say, well, 
if crop insurance does not work, we will do ad hoc disaster on top of 
that, and the next thing you know, taxpayers are paying for both. Next 
will be blueberries and potatoes and everything else that comes in. 
They will say, ``I see that in 1995 you took care of cotton; can you 
take care of us as well?"
  I hope colleagues understand that I do not offer this amendment as a 
consequence of radical disagreement or objection to what the chairman 
and ranking member are doing. They have done an exceptional job of 
putting this bill together. I offer it as a consequence of believing 
very strongly that our policy ought to continue with crop insurance. If 
it is demonstrable that crop insurance does not work--and there are 
many problems still with that--and it is demonstrable that it does not 
work, we should abandon the crop insurance program and go back to year 
in and year out politically deciding in Congress how it is that we are 
going to allocate resources for the disaster program.
  Mr. President, that concludes my stirring remarks on this particular 
amendment. I told the Senator from Mississippi I was going to take 10 
or 15 minutes. I have not done that.

                          ____________________