[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13814-S13836]
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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the situation, for the information of 
Senators, is that we are at the point now where we can proceed to take 
the remaining amendments up and consider them, dispose of them, and 
move to final passage.
  There are several amendments that have been listed in an agreement we 
entered into yesterday limiting amendments that we understand will be 
called up and we will have to consider them.
  Senator Stevens has an amendment on the salary of an Under Secretary 
position at the Department of Agriculture. That will be offered soon, 
we understand. Senator McCain has an amendment dealing with education 
funds for tribal colleges, and we are happy to consider that amendment 
at any time the Senator would like to offer it. We may very well be 
able to work that out without a rollcall vote. We hope we can.
  I am saying all this to let Senators know that we are making 
progress. We are getting to the point where we hope we will be able to 
move to final passage on this bill in the early evening so we will not 
have to stay in late on this bill tonight. We want to finish the bill 
tonight. The majority leader has indicated that we will stay in until 
we finish the bill. I am simply saying I am encouraged that we may be 
able to finish this bill early this evening if Senators will come and 
offer their amendments.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the manager of the 
bill and Senator Bumpers for their patience. I should be ready to 
propose this amendment within a few minutes as soon as I get one 
additional piece of information.
  Would the Senator from Mississippi want me to suggest the absence of 
a quorum while we talk?
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand that my colleague from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, will shortly be offering an amendment to 
provide funds for American Indian postsecondary institutions. And I 
want to speak very briefly in support of this amendment.
  Mr. President, Senator McCain, as chair of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, is offering this amendment which I am proud to cosponsor which 
will provide funds to those institutions that are authorized in the 
Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994. That act was 
included as part of the Improving America's Schools Act, which we also 
passed in the last Congress.
  Mr. President, I sponsored that legislation in the last Congress to 
rectify what I saw as an unjust situation. That is, that every State 
and territory in the country had a land-grant college that received 
funds by virtue of that designation, but none of the Indian-operated 
institutions were designated as land-grant institutions in spite of the 
very important work that they did preparing people for careers in 
agriculture.
  Mr. President, we had the anomalous situation where the University of 
the District of Columbia was a land-grant college, but those 
institutions in my own State and elsewhere in the country which were 
dedicated to training Indian Americans to pursue careers in 
agriculture, as well as other careers, were not so designated. So the 
Equity in Educational Land Grant Act authorized land-grant programs for 
the 29 tribal and Indian-serving institutions, which came to be known 
as the 1994 institutions as a result of our passage of that legislation 
last year.
  Those institutions serve 25,000 students from 200 different tribes. 
The legislation then passed in October 1994 had bipartisan support and 
had the endorsement of the Department of Agriculture, the National 
Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges, the 1890 
historically black land-grant colleges and the existing land-grant 
colleges in States with tribal colleges.
  The appropriation that Senator McCain is calling for here would make 
funds available for four different purposes, as I understand it, for 
payment into the endowment, which would be much-needed; a certain 
amount of funding to strengthen curriculum in food and agriculture 
sciences in these 1994 institutions; a certain amount for capacity-
building grants; and, again, a separate amount for competitively 
awarded extension programs administered through the existing State 
land-grant colleges in cooperation with these 1994 institutions.
  The offset would be from a very small amount of the dollars provided 
for the benefit of the land-grant college system. I am persuaded that 
these funds will be well spent. The programs that the amendment 
provides for in all 29 colleges are roughly equal to the 

[[Page S13815]]
amount that the Department of Agriculture allocates to fewer than one 
of the existing land-grant colleges each year.
  This funding will develop expertise in training to improve the 
training and use of over 50 million acres of Indian agricultural and 
forest land. The most recent surveys of tribal colleges found that even 
in the economically depressed areas where these schools are located, 
tribal college graduates are employed at rates of 74 to 85 percent, 
generating very large amounts in Federal taxes.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support 
Senator McCain and his amendment. I hope it is adopted by the full 
Senate.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank my friend and colleague from New 
Mexico for his efforts on this issue but also many others that he and I 
have been involved in over a period of many years on behalf of native 
Americans. And, as he stated so eloquently, this is a matter of simple 
fairness.
  I am pleased to note, Mr. President, that the distinguished manager, 
the Senator from Mississippi, and Senator Bumpers have agreed to a 
compromise on this amendment which I will be proposing shortly. And, 
Mr. President, the compromise amendment that I will be proposing on 
behalf of myself, Senators Domenici, Inouye, Bingaman, and Conrad is 
fundamentally the same.
  In the interest of time, I will make my remarks and then propose the 
amendment when the paperwork is finished, making the changes that are 
being implemented as a result of the compromise that Senator Bumpers, 
Senator Cochran, and I have achieved.
  Mr. President, this amendment would provide funding for extension 
education and capacity building and programs at the 29 tribally 
controlled community colleges in the United States.
  These programs were fully authorized to be funded by the Department 
of Agriculture by the Improving America's School Act of 1994. I want to 
emphasize again, Mr. President, these programs were authorized in 1994.
  What the distinguished chairman has agreed to is that we have 
approximately $4.1 million in funding for these 29 tribal-controlled 
community colleges. The funds necessary to fund these efforts, of 
course, will be small in comparison to the approximately $855 million 
that is provided in this bill for research and extension programs of 
the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service budget 
of the Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. President, the tribally controlled community colleges and 
institutions in America share an unfortunate fact with other tribal 
organizations in Indian country: They perform an extremely important 
task on behalf of the poorer citizens in our country, yet they have 
been long ignored. While many colleges and universities in America are 
worried about protecting State and Federal funding, tribal colleges in 
Indian country are struggling to survive.
  It is really not appropriate that while many universities continue to 
receive this great amount of money, tribal colleges live in fear of 
losing their accreditation due to an urgent lack of funds.
  Recently, we have seen actions in this body that have not been 
favorable to native Americans, as we noted in the Interior 
appropriations bill. The 29 tribal colleges in America, often called 
the ``1994 institutions,'' due to the fact that Congress gave them 
partial status as land-grant colleges last year, are extremely 
important to the goal of providing access of native Americans to 
education.
  Many of these colleges are the only chance native Americans have to 
pursue their dreams of acquiring the skills and education they so 
desperately need to pursue their dreams. I think it is likely many 
Americans, and perhaps many Members of Congress, are unaware of the 
importance of tribally controlled colleges in Indian country. These 
colleges include among the 29, the Black Feet Community College in 
Browning, CO; the Sinte Gleska University in Rosebud, SD; the Southwest 
Indian Polytech Institute in Albuquerque, NM; and the Turtle Mountain 
Community College in Belcourt, ND.
  Mr. President, there is a problem that native Americans have many 
times when they enter a college or university. Many of these young 
people have spent their entire lives in remote parts of our respective 
States, sometimes never coming in contact with more than 50 or 100 or 
at most 200 people for most of their lives, and then they are thrust 
into a large university situation.
  In my own State, there are two large universities of 40,000 students 
each. When a native American student goes from the very small and very 
lowly populated environment to this very large scenario, they find many 
times it is a culture shock which is very difficult to cope with. As a 
result of this, the dropout rates of our large universities across the 
country, but also in Arizona, is extremely high, as high as 85 and 90 
percent.
  We find that in the tribal community colleges that the environment is 
much different and the success rate is dramatically improved.
  Last year, a bipartisan coalition of Senators took note of the 
important work of tribally controlled colleges and the difficult 
circumstances they face and passed legislation authorizing the 
Department of Agriculture to assist agriculture-related programs at 
these schools.
  It is very fitting for Department of Agriculture funds to be used to 
support native American colleges, as this amendment would achieve. 
American Indian lands span over 54 million acres in the United States, 
with 75 percent of this total being agricultural land and another 15 
percent forestry land.
  Unfortunately, due to a lack of resources, millions of acres of these 
potentially productive lands lie fallow or are underutilized. The 
modest amount of funds provided by this amendment would empower 
tribally controlled colleges and students to assist their communities 
and effectively develop their agricultural resources.
  Obviously, I believe this amendment is a matter of equity. The 
Congress and the President joined together last year to offer new hope 
to native American schools and students but are on the verge of failing 
to deliver a promise yet again due to the lack of funds in this bill. 
Tribal colleges will use very well this amount of money, and it will be 
vital to the existence of some of them.
  Mr. President, I would like to, just for purposes of the Record, 
mention a couple of facts: The median age for American Indians residing 
on reservations was 20.7 years of age in 1990, the median age for the 
entire United States was 32.9 years.
  Fifty-seven percent of the total American Indian population was age 
24 or younger in the United States in 1990, as compared to 36 percent 
for the mainstream population of the United States.
  The population age group 5 to 17 comprised an average 31 percent of 
the total American Indian population, as compared to the national 
average of only 18 percent.
  The American Indian population increased 38 percent between 1980 and 
1990; the total United States population increased by 9.8 percent in 
the same period.
  The American Indian baby boom has now reached college and employment 
age. In 1989, 31 percent of American Indians lived below the poverty 
level; the national poverty rate was 13 percent in that same year.
  Unemployment rates on Indian reservations averages 45 percent, while 
some reservations served by the tribal colleges have unemployment rates 
as high as 86 percent.
  From a 1994 sample of 16 tribal colleges, fully 74 percent of tribal 
college graduates are successfully employed; 42 percent of tribal 
college graduates go on to continue their education in other 
postsecondary institutions.
  Mainstream public colleges are geographically inaccessible to many 
young American Indians, and by depriving American Indians of an equal 
education, we are preventing American Indians from finding adequate 
employment opportunities.
  Mr. President, 1,340 out of 1,575 graduates in a sample of six tribal 
colleges were successfully employed and paid a total of $2.73 million 
annually in taxes. This is a dramatic difference than there is, 
obviously, from the average 

[[Page S13816]]
native American, and I think it proves that in the long run, educating 
Indian children is just as productive, in fact in some ways more so, 
than as it is non-Indian children.
  I note the presence of my friends from North Dakota and from Hawaii 
on the floor. I will state, hopefully the amendment will be finished in 
a few minutes so I can formally present the amendment. In the meantime, 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to commend my friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona, for his leadership and for his wise 
counsel in sponsoring this amendment. I hope that the Senate will adopt 
the amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona, and others, who are supporting this initiative for working 
with the managers to craft the language so this will be acceptable. We 
are going to recommend the approval of the amendment. It is being 
drafted, and I understand as soon as it is, it will be offered, and we 
will recommend that the Senate adopt it on a voice vote.
  I know other Senators are here with other amendments. Until we have 
an opportunity to formally act on the amendment, I will yield the 
floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator 
McCain, for his leadership on this amendment. Senator McCain and 
Senator Inouye have been true friends of the Indian peoples of this 
country. Over and over and over, they have taken initiatives to try to 
make a difference in the lives of people who desperately need that 
assistance.
  The amendment that the Senator from Arizona has offered this 
afternoon is especially important to me, because I remember very well 
speaking at the Turtle Mountain Community College that the Senator from 
Arizona referenced. I spoke at their graduation. I wish my colleagues 
could have been there to see the difference these community colleges 
are making. The idea that people were having a chance to make the most 
of themselves, that there was an educational opportunity, that there 
was a chance to go beyond what had been the experience of their parents 
and their grandparents, that there was a chance to develop themselves, 
which had filled them with such hope and such a sense of self-worth 
that you could see it in the eyes of the hundreds of students who were 
there. You could see that pride when they reached out and received a 
diploma that said they had mastered the subject matter.

  Mr. President, in all of the time I have been in the U.S. Senate, 
there has never been a time that I was as moved personally by what I 
saw as I was on that day at graduation at the Turtle Mountain Community 
College. I was absolutely persuaded that this is making a difference in 
the lives of people.
  If you could have gone to that reservation, like I did 25 years ago, 
and seen the conditions there and seen the difference that community 
college is making today, it is so dramatic that it is almost hard to 
believe you are in the same place. They now have several industries 
that are at work, that are producing goods for the military of this 
country that are second to none. Their tribal industry built the water 
trailers used in Desert Storm, and the Army says they are the finest 
water trailers they have ever had, and they were absolutely critical in 
that conflict. They were made by people who were the graduates of that 
community college. It is precisely the kind of thing we ought to be 
doing.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership and initiative.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a question, concerning the 
water trailers, were they constructed by the tribal authority?
  Mr. CONRAD. The tribal industries had built the water trailers that 
were used in Desert Storm.
  Mr. McCAIN. What kind of an impact does that have on the tribal 
economy?
  Mr. CONRAD. It is very dramatic because their contracts run in the 
tens of millions of dollars a year. It has made a dramatic difference 
to the economy of that reservation. I might say to my colleague, not 
only has that industry made a difference, they have also--this is very 
interesting--formed a computer company. That computer company now does 
the work for the Treasury Department. They manage the computer systems 
of the U.S. Treasury Department. They have done a first-class job. They 
employ literally hundreds of people in doing that service, and they 
have done a superb job, by the way, an absolutely superb job, and they 
are graduates of that particular community college.
  Mr. McCAIN. Finally, would they be able to conduct and manage both 
industries if they did not have the community college training that is 
provided at Turtle Mountain?
  Mr. CONRAD. No, clearly not. That community college has formed the 
basis of providing an educated cadre of employees that make those firms 
successful.
  I say to my colleague, if you could go there and see the difference 
it is making in the self-confidence of those people, in their sense of 
self-worth, it is just a dramatic thing. Again, I thank my colleague 
for what he has done.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I would consider it 
a privilege to come up sometime and visit Turtle Mountain Community 
College, because I really believe that these 29 community colleges 
provide what, frankly, we are not able to provide.
  As I said earlier, at the University of Arizona and Arizona State 
University, we get many native American students entering those 
schools. Those 40,000 students are probably more people than some of 
the native American students have ever laid their eyes on in their 
lives. It is culture shock. And the dropout rate is high. As much as we 
try to design what are almost affirmative action programs, and special 
tutoring in special areas, we have great difficulty keeping them.
  Yet, at the community colleges--for example, Navajo Community 
College, the dropout rate is very small because the environment and the 
climate is so conducive to an atmosphere where they feel a great degree 
of comfort. I think when we look at these community colleges, they play 
a far greater role than, perhaps, we could ever appreciate.
  Mr. CONRAD. I could not agree more with the Senator from Arizona. If 
any colleague had a chance to go there and witness what I have seen, 
they would conclude that this is the single best expenditure we have 
made in the country.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe I am about 1 minute from being 
able to dispose of this amendment. If my friend from Massachusetts will 
indulge me, 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2694

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2694.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 25, line 14, strike ``$568,685,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$564,685,000''.
       On page 15, line 13, after the semicolon insert 
     ``$1,450,000 for payments to the 1994 institutions pursuant 
     to Sec. 534(a)(1) of P.L. 103-382;''.
       On page 15, line 17, strike ``$418,172,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$419,622,000''.
       On page 18, line 2, after the semicolon, insert 
     ``$2,550,000 for payments to the 1994 institutions pursuant 
     to Sec. 534(b)(3) of P.L. 103-382;''.
       On page 18, line 11, strike ``$437,131,000'' and insert 
     ``$439,681,000''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I support the amendment which would 
provide $4.0 million in funding to support extension, education, and 
capacity building programs at the 29 tribally 

[[Page S13817]]
controlled community colleges and institutions in the United States.
  I would also like to thank the committee for the $4.6 million already 
in the bill for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
  The amounts already provided in the bill and the amount in amendment 
will enhance educational opportunities for Native Americans by building 
educational capacity at the 29 institutions.
  These institutions are in urgent need for additional resources to 
educate their 20,000 students from over 200 tribes.
  This funding would enhance student recruitment and retention for 
Native Americans, curricula development, faculty preparation, 
instruction delivery, and scientific instrumentation for teaching.
  The programs that are funded under this amendment are authorized 
under last year's elementary and secondary education amendments which 
was signed into law in October, 1994.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not believe that the amendment 
requires any further debate or discussion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2694) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2695

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds for providing 
 assistance to the United States Mink Export Development Council or a 
                    mink industry trade association)

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Bryan, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2695.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . MINK INDUSTRY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) since 1989, the Federal government, through the 
     Department of Agriculture Market Promotion Program, has 
     provided more than $13,000,000 to the Mink Export Development 
     Council for the overseas promotion of mink coats and 
     products; and
       (2) the Department of Commerce has estimated that since 
     1989 the value of United States exports of mink products has 
     declined by more then 33 percent and total United States mink 
     production has been halved.
       (b) Funding.--None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to carry out, or to pay the salaries of personnel 
     who carry out, the market promotion program established under 
     section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 
     5623), in a manner that provides assistance to the United 
     States Mink Export Development Council or any mink industry 
     trade association.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, my colleague, Senator Bryan, Senator Lieberman, and Senator 
Smith. I know that Senator Smith, I think, intends to speak on this 
amendment. But we will not take very long at all.
  Over the course of the last few years, we have become accustom to 
identifying a series of programs on the floor of the Senate that most 
people have come to a quick conclusion do not make sense, against 
almost any standard or judgment. I think there are a lot of programs, 
we have come to realize, that have outlived original purposes, but they 
are still staunchly defended by entrenched special interests. There are 
a lot of other programs which never served the national interest at 
all, but they were initiated to satisfy a very powerful political 
interest. This appears to be one of those programs that may even fit 
both of those criteria, but which at this point in time does not make 
sense.
  We had a debate earlier today about the Market Promotion Program. I 
joined as a cosponsor with colleagues in trying to do away with the 
whole program because there is, on its face, an enormous, legitimate 
question as to whether or not while we are cutting so much and so in so 
many other areas and particularly when we are making important 
judgments about the ability of the private sector to do what the 
private sector ought to do, there are huge concerns about the 
Government ponying up money to pay for what very big ongoing concerns 
ought to be able to do on their own.

  There is even a greater concern--just on a philosophical basis--there 
is a huge concern about why the public sector ought to be subsidizing 
private sector entities that are entirely profitable, but we are 
subsidizing things that are wholly within the mainstream of the normal 
commercial business.
  There is a second question about why we ought to do that at a moment 
when we are asking a whole lot of Americans to give up things.
  So I am particularly asking my colleagues to think about a component, 
one component, of the Market Promotion Program which is the money that 
we pay to the Mink Export Development Council.
  No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, it would seem to 
me that we ought to be able to reach the common sense rational 
conclusion that for the United States to be asking taxpayers to 
subsidize the sale of mink abroad does not meet any rational test.
  Since 1989, we have spent $13.2 million for overseas promotions of 
minks. We ought to stop it now. We ought to signal to the country that 
we are prepared to stop it now.
  That is an average, and it averages because it is different each 
year, about $2 million a year, of hard-earned taxpayers' money that 
goes to promote foreign fashion shows and advertising. It is precisely 
this kind of special interest that most Americans are saying, when are 
you going to cut out this nonsense?
  We are about to say a teenaged mother is not going to be able to get 
child care paid for, for a certain amount when she goes to work, but we 
can pay $2 million to a company that makes a profit in order to help 
them promote mink sales abroad.
  We will tell an elderly couple that we are cutting Medicare but we 
are going to keep the mink subsidy so this profitable company can sell 
mink.
  We are going to tell a college student we have cut back on the Pell 
grants but we are not going to cut back on the mink subsidy.
  We are going to tell a child we are not going to have Head Start but 
we are not going to cut back on the mink subsidy.
  I think the arguments are very obvious and I do not need to belabor 
them.
  I will share with my colleagues an advertisement which shows what 
this money is going to.
  Here is money spent by the council on the sale of mink. This is in a 
Japanese magazine. It is in Japanese. I might add, nowhere does it say 
anything about America, or American mink or anything like that. It just 
says buy the mink.
  Here is the translation: ``Announcing the newest and best mink 
collection. Excellent material and design. A step above the rest. With 
our pride we will provide you with a unique opportunity to upgrade your 
personal style.''
  That is it. That is what the taxpayers of America are paying for.
  Now, of the $13 million that we spent in the last few years, 90 
percent of it has gone to three companies. One of those companies is a 
subsidiary of a large foreign-owned corporation, and every American 
ought to be outraged by that.
  The two principal recipients of this largess are very large companies 
with significant revenues who simply do not need the average taxpayers 
of America giving them money to subsidize a foreign fashion show.
  Mr. President, let me point to these two companies. From 1990 to 
1994, Hudson Bay's North America Fur and American Legends received 
$11,840,866 during that period. North American Fur has revenues of $49 
million and it is affiliated with a Canadian conglomerate that has 
53,200 employees and $3.9 billion in sales. 

[[Page S13818]]

  This advertisement, this program, speaks for themselves. At a time of 
change in Washington this program ought to be included in that change. 
I hope my colleagues will join the House of Representatives who voted 
overwhelmingly to get rid of this ridiculous subsidy.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my 
colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts.
  This is an amendment that is necessary. It should be so obvious, 
considering the types of debate we have been having about cuts and 
reductions in spending and balancing the budget.
  I have always voted against market promotion programs but some like 
to refer to it as ``corporate welfare.'' I am satisfied with simply 
calling it a costly program that frankly does not work.
  That is really the issue here. If you are going to be providing 
subsidies, it ought to be accomplishing something, if you take a 
position that subsidies are necessary.
  The amendment that passed the House focuses on one particularly 
disturbing use of Federal tax dollars which the Senator from 
Massachusetts has outlined. That is a $2 million subsidy for the Mink 
Export Development Council.
  I came in late and I apologize to the Senator from Massachusetts, I 
do not know if he got into the amendment specifically in terms of the 
language.
  I will read that amendment verbatim, so we know exactly what it is 
that we are voting on. A virtually identical amendment passed the House 
by a vote of 232-160.
  It is very interesting, the findings in the amendment. This is right 
out of the House of Representatives amendment:

       (a) Findings, (1) since 1989, the Federal Government 
     through the Department of Agriculture Market Promotion 
     Program, has provided more than $13 million to the Mink 
     Export Development Council for the overseas promotion of mink 
     coats and products; and
       (2), the Department of Commerce has estimated that since 
     1989 the value of the United States exports of mink products 
     has declined by more than 33 percent and total U.S. mink 
     production has been halved.

  The third finding is in the area of funding.

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     carry out, or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out the 
     market promotion program established under section 203 of the 
     Agriculture Trade Act . . . in a manner that provides 
     assistance to the United States Mink Export Development 
     Council or any mink industry trade association.

  Mr. President, if I had my preference I would zero out the entire MPP 
program. We do not need it. That is very obvious. That is not really 
what the Senator from Massachusetts is talking about here.
  What we are saying is if we are going to continue to fund this 
program, do not use it to subsidize the mink industry. Since 1989 this 
program, as I indicated in the findings of the amendment, has funneled 
nearly $13 million into the pockets of mink producers.
  What are the funds being used for? What is the use of these funds? 
Well, they put on fashion shows for mink coats in Europe. I am sure 
that people who work hard for a living every day trying to make ends 
meet are very thrilled about that, paying their tax dollars.
  They take out advertisements to promote these shows. That is what 
some of the money is being used for.
  Who is paying for that? Who is paying for it? It is not you and me. 
It is probably not even our children. It is our grandchildren and their 
grandchildren. They will pay for these fashion shows. They will pay for 
all of that interest that accumulates on the money we borrow to pay for 
the mink ads. That is who is going to pay, Mr. President.

  So, some of my colleagues might say, what the heck is $2 million? 
That is nothing, $2 million.
  I guess when you are talking about trillions it probably is nothing. 
But we borrow money at about 7 or 8 percent. Let us say 7 percent. So 7 
percent of $2 million is $140,000 in interest on that $2 million we are 
spending on this subsidy. Talk about borrowing $2 million, not just 1 
year, not just this year, every year, year after year after year, 
paying it all back with interest.
  As I said many times in speaking about some of the spending in this 
place, there is not a big fund sitting in the Treasury Department that 
has a surplus in it. We have a big debt and a big deficit. So we are 
borrowing this $2 million from hard-working men and women across this 
country who are trying to meet their child care responsibilities, maybe 
somebody on Medicare who really needs the money who is going to see a 
cut in Medicare, and we are going to fund $2 million in mink subsidies 
for mink coats and advertisements in Europe. It is a wasteful, 
ridiculous and, frankly, embarrassing spending program. I commend the 
Senator from Massachusetts for bringing it here to the attention of our 
colleagues.
  To fully understand how reprehensible this program is, there is 
another side to it. Some may not choose to get into it. It is the whole 
issue of the inhumane manner in which these animals are treated.
  Some might say the funding is paramount, and it is. But I think, 
also, you have to look at this other issue. I would like to point it 
out. If it gets another vote and that makes a difference, then I am 
more than happy to point it out.
  There are a couple of letters. The ASPCA, in a letter to me dated 
August 28 this year, said:

       [They were] surprised to learn that the mink industry 
     receives such a subsidy at all. Mink-rearing practices are 
     extremely cruel. The animals often die by suffocation with 
     hot, unfiltered carbon monoxide from motor vehicles, or are 
     killed by lethal injection of the pesticide Black Leaf 40, 
     diluted with rubbing alcohol. These wild animals are raised 
     in small cages and exhibit classic signs of serious stress 
     such as constant pacing, throwing themselves against the 
     sides of the cage walls, and self-mutilation.

  So I think that is an issue that may be of interest to some, the fact 
when you wear that coat you are participating in that cruelty and you 
are also spending a lot of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
  So another letter, which came to me from Wayne Pacelle, Vice 
President of Government Affairs of the Humane Society of the United 
States, in which he said:

       The mink subsidy is not providing a good return on 
     investment. While the taxpayer subsidy to the mink industry 
     has increased by 20 percent over the last 5 years, total U.S. 
     exports of mink pelts have declined by 35 percent.

  We are not getting any return on the investment we are making. So the 
bottom line is, it is inhumane to the animals, No. 1. No. 2, it is 
costing taxpayers a lot of money they should not be asked to spend, 
under these difficult budget times.
  We ought to respect the fact that this money belongs to the people of 
the United States of America. It belongs to the taxpayers. We are not 
respecting that. The mink subsidy is not only opposed by the ASPCA and 
other animal rights groups, it is opposed by the National Taxpayers 
Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Heritage Foundation, and the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute--liberals, conservatives, both sides of the 
political agenda; pro-business, pro-labor; Democrats, Republicans. All 
are opposed to a very wasteful program.
  In fact, just this morning--I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
may have referred to it--the Washington Post ran an excellent article 
about this mink marketing program. Just a couple of paragraphs from 
that article in today's Washington post. The lead story by Guy 
Gugliotta:

       Let's face it. At a time when Congress is talking about 
     cutting off welfare mothers, student loans and low-income 
     housing, it is pretty hard to argue that the nation's few 
     hundred mink ranchers need a $2 million federal subsidy.

  You cannot really say it much better than that:

       It just looks bad for the feds to be paying for overseas 
     advertising and fashion shows to promote the only item on 
     Earth that blends naturally with diamonds and a Cadillac 
     limo.

  That really is not the image that I want to have as a Member of this 
Senate and it is wrong. I do not think we ought to be promoting it.
  People just are not interested, frankly, anyway, for the most part, 
in wearing mink. That is why the exports have gone down. You can do all 
the marketing in the world, but if people do not like the product they 
are not going to buy it.
  So, if we decided to start pumping millions of Federal tax dollars 
into 

[[Page S13819]]
marketing zoot suits next, would people start buying them? I doubt it. 
But probably somebody around here might think up a Federal subsidy for 
zoot suits and probably would make an attempt to get it passed, if they 
made zoot suits in their State. But they are not in fashion. Frankly, 
mink coats are not in fashion anymore, either.
  Where mink coats were once seen as a status symbol, now they are a 
symbol of cruelty. And, in addition, now, because we know they are 
being subsidized so extensively by the taxpayers, they are a symbol of 
Government waste. People are not interested in either one.
  Over in the House, as the Senator from Massachusetts said, they voted 
to eliminate the mink subsidy. It was an easy decision. It was 
lopsided.
  Yet here they tell me the vote is close. It is an easy decision for 
me. How can we tell men and women serving their country that we cannot 
afford to keep their military base open but we can toss away $2 million 
for overseas fashion shows? Or how do we tell a young man or young 
woman serving in some faraway country--maybe in Bosnia, in the very 
near future--at a recruit pay, basic pay, some of them on food stamps; 
we are going to tell them that we are going to fund the mink subsidy 
because that is more important than them?
  Will you tell the thousands of other taxpaying businessmen and women 
who have never received a nickel of Government subsidy? I ask my 
colleagues to just think a little bit about the people in your State, 
business men and women whom you have run into in the past few years as 
you have campaigned or gone around meeting your constituents. Think 
about them: Barbers, construction workers, union guys, business guys. 
They work hard. Think about them. Do you think they would support this 
subsidy? You ought to ask them. Give them a call and ask them, if they 
support this kind of subsidy; that they think their dollars should go 
for this?
  They have to save or even borrow money to pay college expenses or to 
perhaps promote their business, perhaps to buy a car, or even the basic 
essentials of life. Maybe they cannot afford to do that. So maybe they 
just go around and put a leaflet on the car promoting their business. I 
could find hundreds of ways to use the $2 million subsidies and so 
could they. Every one of them--think about it; $2 million. That is not 
how the free market works.
  Most successful businessmen fully understand it. The brilliance of 
the competitive marketplace is if you provide a service that people 
want for a decent price there is no limit to your success. At the same 
time, if you are marketing a product that nobody wants, or very few 
people want, you will either go bankrupt, you will go out of business, 
or you will start making something else, some other product that 
somebody else might be interested in.
  That is why stores do not have racks full of outdated clothes. Once 
they go out of style, people are not interested in them anymore so they 
get rid of them. When people stop buying them you take them off the 
rack and you replace them with the latest fashion. This principle has 
worked for over 200 years in this country--200 years, long before 
subsidies. You start confusing the system when you start to pump money 
into an industry that, frankly, cannot cut it, it cannot cut it on the 
open market, it cannot handle it. And we ought not to be putting 
Federal dollars, hard earned, working men and women's dollars into such 
an outrageous--outrageous subsidy.
  For the Government to be using tax dollars to bring an outdated 
fashion back into vogue flies right smack in the face of the whole free 
market system. There are a lot of us in here on this side of the aisle, 
and some on the other side of the aisle, who profess to be strong 
advocates of the free market system. If you are a strong advocate of 
the free market, if people want to buy mink coats and there is plenty 
of mink out there, why do we have to have the taxpayers subsidize 
growing mink to provide those coats? Give me one good reason. I would 
like to hear one good reason.
  If the voters said anything in the last election, they said cut 
spending and restore the free market principles to our country. That is 
what we are doing. This is $2 million, not a lot of money under a huge 
$1.5 trillion budget. But, my goodness, what a small, little step. If 
we cannot take this little, tiny step to stop subsidizing the 
production of mink coats, if we cannot do that, then I do not have a 
lot of hope that we are ever going to get to reconciliation and balance 
the budget. The House got the message. They supported this amendment 
232 to 160. They did the right thing. Let us not be the laughingstock 
of the Congress and approve such an outrageous subsidy. That is an 
insult to every hard-working man and woman in this country. I would 
venture to say even the very few people left who wear mink coats would 
probably be opposed to this subsidy. How can anybody be for this 
subsidy? What is the justification for this subsidy? Let us show the 
voters that the Senate got the same message that the House got and not 
be the laughingstock of the Congress by passing such an outrageous, 
absolutely outrageous, subsidy.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, my remarks will be brief.
  I could rise to talk about the MPP program. But that is not what this 
amendment is about. This amendment is about excluding an industry from 
participation in this program simply because of a group that doesn't 
like mink, more specifically, mink coats--95 percent of which are 
exported.
  The Senate voted yesterday to support the MPP program. The Senate has 
spoken. Why are we talking about fur? Why not grapes, cotton, raisins, 
wheat, or wine?
  The Kerry amendment does not reduce spending for the MPP; it just 
prohibits funding for mink production. This amendment saves no money. 
Mr. President, that is the bottom line.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the 
background of this amendment is that when the House, the other body, 
was considering this legislation, an amendment was offered on the floor 
which provides as follows: That no funds in the bill should be 
allocated under the Market Promotion Program to the U.S. Mink Export 
Development Council or any mink industry trade association.
  So by this legislation there was a prohibition suggested in the 
amendment against allocating MPP funds for this purpose, to promote 
exports of U.S.-grown mink.
  I think we have a big problem in trying to substitute our judgment 
for the decisions that the administrators of the Market Promotion 
Program have. This amendment does not seek to strike any funds. This 
amendment does not reduce the appropriation of money to the Market 
Promotion Program activity. As a matter of fact, we have already 
debated that issue. The issue was presented to the Senate by Senators 
Bryan and Bumpers. We debated it at length last night for a full hour. 
Most Senators had left for the evening. But we debated it, and we had a 
vote on it today. The vote was about 60-40, as I recall, to table the 
amendment.
  The point was made during the discussion--I will repeat it here just 
briefly--that this program promotes the export of U.S.-grown 
agriculture commodities: food products, and the like. It is big 
business for the United States to sell what we produce in the export 
markets, and with the changes in the Uruguay round of GATT, more and 
more market opportunities are becoming favorable. This program has 
proved very helpful.
  The difficulty I have as manager of the bill with this amendment is 
that it seeks to substitute the judgment of the Senate, and calls upon 
it to act on the floor of the Senate for the judgment of the 
administrators. I have received from the Department of Agriculture 
information about the program which says that mink exports in 1994 are 
estimated at about $100 million. That is a substantial increase from 
earlier levels.
  The suggestion in the information we are given is that exports to 
Korea alone could exceed $40 million, which almost doubles the 1993 
level. One of the associations that is involved in trying to promote 
the export of these products says that if it had not been for MPP 
funding here and the assistance that they provided to promote 

[[Page S13820]]
U.S. mink industry products, we would not have a domestic mink industry 
in the United States. The fact is 28 States have mink production. In 
the State of Wisconsin, I remember the number is $19 million in the 
local economy which depends on this industry alone.
  So I am hopeful that the Senate will approve our motion to table this 
amendment and not get into the business of trying to micromanage and 
legislate changes in this program on an appropriations bill. That is 
what is being sought.
  So at the time when Senators have spoken as much as they want to 
speak, it will be my intention to move to table and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished manager will move 
to table literally within minutes. I just have one quick response, 
unless somebody else wants to speak. My friend from Mississippi is 
absolutely correct. This is a question of whether or not we want to 
substitute our judgment. That is exactly what it is. I think most 
Senators would agree this is an outrageous, stupid judgment. We are not 
talking about computers here. We are not talking about foodstuff that 
is the mainstay of some developing country like wheat or something. We 
are talking about minks that my friend from New Hampshire appropriately 
said, and the Washington Post said today, blends in with diamonds and 
Cadillacs.
  If those folks want to, let them pay a little more for the cost of 
the advertising, which I always thought was the notion of capitalism. 
That is the private sector. You make your money. You go out and you do 
the cost of doing business. And everybody here has railed forever about 
the Government being involved in the process. Here is an opportunity to 
get the Government out of it. It is very, very simple and very 
straightforward.
  So my friend is absolutely correct. Do we today want to substitute 
our judgment and suggest that the judgment of some people that want to 
spend this money is wrong?
  I hope my colleagues will join together and say it is wrong. I am all 
for exports. I am not saying no to the mink industry. I have a mink 
farmer in Massachusetts. I hope my mink farmer in Massachusetts does 
very well, and continues to. That is fine. I just do not want the 
taxpayers subsidizing this particular endeavor. That is what this vote 
is about.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Massachusetts and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Mississippi to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Massachusetts. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] and 
the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
absent due to illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 78, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 445 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Specter

                                NAYS--78

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Frist
     Hatfield
     Johnston
     Simpson
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2695) was 
rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2695) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2696

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2696.
       On page 32 of the bill, strike lines 7 through 11 and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:
       Sec.   . For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office 
     of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment 
     to administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, $677,000: Provided, That none 
     of these funds shall be available to administer laws enacted 
     by Congress for the Forest Service; Provided Further, That 
     $350,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to administer the laws enacted by Congress for 
     the Forest Service; Provided Further, That notwithstanding 
     Section 245(c) of Public Law 103-354 (7 U.S.C. 6961(c)), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may not delegate any authority to 
     administer laws enacted by Congress, or funds provided by 
     this Act, for the Forest Service to the Under Secretary for 
     Natural Resources and Environment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in 1948, the Congress passed a law that 
provided that ``no part of any appropriation for the Bureau of 
Reclamation contained in this Act shall be used for the salaries and 
expenses of a person of any of the following positions:''
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order. It is 
very difficult to hear the Senator from Alaska. That really means we 
are not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will please 
come to order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall not take umbrage at my friend 
from Arkansas, because normally I can be heard. I do appreciate his 
concern.
  As I was saying, in 1948, Congress passed a law which, in effect, cut 
off the salary for the Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation.
  In 1987, under the leadership of the now deceased Jamie Whitten, 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Congress passed Public 
Law 100-202, which read as follows, and I ask unanimous consent that 
this be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to read it:

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Special Services. For 
     the necessary salaries and expenses to continue the Office of 
     the Assistant Secretary for purposes of providing special 
     services to the Department, $416,000: Provided, that none of 
     these funds shall be 

[[Page S13821]]
     available for the supervision of Natural Resources and Environment 
     activities, the Soil Conservation Service, or the Forest 
     Service.

  By that amendment, Mr. Whitten, in effect, defunded the salary of a 
gentleman named Dunlop. He held the same position in the Department of 
Agriculture that my amendment applies to. My amendment applies to the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Agriculture that primarily deals with 
the area of natural resources and environment. He has been supervising 
the Forest Service. I hope that the Senators from Colorado and 
Washington, and others, will address this matter.
  I am concerned that the Secretary of Agriculture has considered this 
amendment to be an amendment that deals with a dispute as to policy.
  Let me assure the former Member of the House and now Secretary of 
Agriculture, this has nothing to do with policy. This has to do with 
the decision of one person of the executive branch not to follow the 
law as enacted by Congress and adopted by the President.
  Mr. Lyons was one of those who was the author of the President's 
Northwest timber plan that promised 2 billion board feet of timber. 
Under his leadership, the Forest Service produced 300 million board 
feet. After Congress released the timber sales in the recent 
rescissions bill, Mr. Lyons tried to prevent that sale from being 
released, and the Federal court immediately agreed with Congress. The 
Senator from Washington will discuss this. In terms of Alaska, Mr. 
Lyons has repeatedly refused to follow the law as passed by the 
Congress.
  In Montana, he decided on his own not to follow the law passed by 
Congress with regard to a roadless area in Montana, basically making 
that area wilderness, although Congress had specifically decided not to 
designate it as wilderness.
  In Alaska, we have had flagrant refusal to follow the law that has 
been passed by Congress. In recent months, we had an amendment that was 
adopted that asked the Forest Service to limit the so-called habitat 
conservation zones in the national forests to the size that was the 
largest size used for such zones in what we call ``the lower 48.''
  Under Mr. Lyons' leadership in the Forest Service, he had designated 
over 600,000 acres of the area that was available for timber harvest in 
the State of Alaska as habitat conservation zones. One of them was one-
fifth the size of Rhode Island.
  After the Congress passed the law and set the maximum area for such 
zones, Mr. Lyons just simply refused to follow it. I do not think this 
is a disagreement policy. We have had our arguments on policy and we 
have them here. When a law is passed and that law is ignored and really 
just faces a complete refusal of the person with the authority to 
administer it, refusal of that person to follow the law, I think it 
sets a very bad standard for our country as a whole.
  We expect our people to follow laws that are enacted by Congress. As 
a matter of fact, most of those people that are not in Government 
employment, if they do not follow a law passed by Congress, they are 
fined immediately. I have an appeal from one miner that was fined 
$48,000 for failing to follow a directive issued orally by a person in 
the Government. We have repeated incidents of members of the public who 
are cited and brought into court, and many other things are done when 
they do not follow the law.
  In this instance, there is nothing to be done. That is why I have 
raised this question. I raised the question of whether or not the 
Congress wants to follow the example set on at least two previous 
occasions and, in effect, remove the area of the Forest Service from 
the delegated authority of the Under Secretary. I have not gone as far 
as Mr. Whitten did, or the 80th Congress, in totally defunding the 
function. All this amendment really does is says to the Secretary of 
Agriculture, we no longer have faith in this person to fairly and 
impartially administer the laws of the Forest Service and, therefore, 
we redelegate the authority back to the Secretary. It is a simple 
matter. There is no change in the money available to the Department of 
Agriculture. There is no change in the money available to the Under 
Secretary's office, as far as his functions are concerned. But the 
money for the supervision of the Forest Service is restored to the 
Secretary's office, and the Secretary is placed back in the position of 
full responsibility for the Forest Service.
  I cannot believe that we would allow a person to completely disregard 
the acts of Congress and refuse to carry them out. I am hopeful, as I 
said, that the Senator from Oregon may have a comment; and the Senator 
from Colorado, I know, wishes to come to the floor. I hope they will 
come to the floor and speak on this amendment.
  I consider it to be just a modest shot across the bow, Mr. President. 
We in the West are tired of this war against the West. We want the laws 
that Congress passes, after long battles here in the Congress, to be 
observed. They have not been observed by this man. He has refused to 
follow them. He has refused to even keep his own word, as you will hear 
from other Members, concerning what he stated he would do and what he 
has actually done in carrying out the authority delegated to him in the 
past.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will adopt this amendment and the House 
will see fit to adopt it. If we do not take action and require these 
people to follow the law, how can we expect the public to obey the laws 
we pass?
  Mr. President, to me, this is a matter of simple justice. This man 
has refused to faithfully follow the laws that have been passed by 
Congress in the area in which he has been delegated authority to 
enforce those laws. I believe this amendment is in order.

                               Exhibit 1

                   Public Law 100-202--Dec. 22, 1987

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Sec. 1. Because the spending levels included in this 
     Resolution achieve the deficit reduction targets of the 
     Economic Summit, sequestration is no longer necessary. 
     Therefore:
       (a) Upon the enactment of this Resolution the orders issued 
     by the President on October 20, 1987, and November 20, 1987, 
     pursuant to section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, are hereby 
     rescinded.
       (b) Any action taken to implement the orders, referred to 
     in subsection (a) shall be reversed, and any sequesterable 
     resource that has been reduced or sequestered by such orders 
     is hereby restored, revived, or released and shall be 
     available to the same extent and for the same purpose as if 
     the orders had not been issued.
       The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any 
     money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and 
     other organizational units of the Government for the fiscal 
     year 1988, and for other purposes, namely:
       Sec. 101.\1\ (a) Such amounts as may be necessary for 
     programs, projects or activities provided for in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988 at a rate of 
     operations and to the extent and in the manner provided for, 
     the provisions of such Act to be effective as if it had been 
     enacted into law as the regular appropriations Act, as 
     follows:
     \1\Copy read ``(a) Such amounts.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           enrollment errata

       Pursuant to the provisions of section 101(n) of this joint 
     resolution (appearing on 101 Stat. 1329-432 changes made are 
     indicated by footnote.
       The words ``Government'', when referring to the Government 
     of the United States will be capitalized, ``Act'', if 
     referring to an action of the Congress of the United States, 
     will be capitalized, ``State'', when referring to a State of 
     the United States will be capitalized, ``title'' and 
     ``section'' will be lower case, when referring to the United 
     States Code or a Federal law. The capitalization of the 
     foregoing words may be changed, and not footnoted.

         Office of the Assistant Secretary for Special Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses to continue the Office 
     of the Assistant Secretary for purposes of providing special 
     services to the Department, $416,000: Provided, That none of 
     these funds shall be available for the supervision of Natural 
     Resources and Environment activities, the Soil Conservation 
     Service, or the Forest Service.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration to carry out the programs funded 
     in this Act, $498,000.

                         Rental Payments (USDA)


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the 
     Department of 

[[Page S13822]]
     Agriculture which are included in this Act, $49,665,000, of which 
     $3,000,000 shall be retained by the Department of Agriculture 
     for non-recurring repairs as determined by the Department of 
     Agriculture: Provided, That in the event an agency within the 
     Department of Agriculture should require modification of 
     space needs, the Secretary of Agriculture may transfer a 
     share of that agency's appropriation made available by this 
     Act to this appropriation, or may transfer a share of this 
     appropriation to that agency's appropriation, but such 
     transfers shall not exceed 10 per centum of the funds made 
     available for space rental and related costs to or from this 
     account.

                  Building Operations and Maintenance

       For the operation, maintenance, and repair of Agriculture 
     buildings pursuant to the delegation of authority from the 
     Administrator of General Services Authorized by 40 U.S.C. 
     486, $20,024,000, of which $3,245,000 is for one-time 
     purchase of systems furniture.

                       Advisory Committees (USDA)

       For necessary expenses for activities of Advisory 
     Committees of the Department of Agriculture which are 
     included in this Act, $1,308,000: Provided, That no other 
     funds appropriated to the Department of Agriculture in this 
     Act shall be available to the Department of Agriculture for 
     support of activities of Advisory Committees.

                       Hazardous Waste Management


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, 
     except for expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation, to 
     comply with the requirement of section 107g of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607g, and section 6001 
     of the Resource Conservation and * * *.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, never before in my career in the U.S. 
Senate have I considered or supported taking an action of this nature. 
Yet, I am convinced that, if anything, the proposal of the Senator from 
Alaska is too mild. Each and every one of us has had differences of 
opinion on matters of policy with persons in a national administration, 
sometimes with members of our own party, but more frequently with those 
of the other party. But these differences of opinion are cast in the 
terms of policy, not in the terms of either truthfulness or a 
willingness to abide by the law.
  So I wish to emphasize as clearly as I possibly can that this 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Alaska does not stem from a 
difference of opinion over a matter of policy with Secretary Lyons. We 
differ with the entire administration on many matters of policy 
relating to the forests. But in the case of Mr. Lyons, we do not get 
truthful answers from him on questions of fact, and we get defiance 
with respect to the law, whether it has been on the law books for an 
extended period of time or is brand new, consistently. And there is a 
vindictive attitude toward any of those who disagree with him and 
toward almost all of those who are engaged in the profession of 
forestry in the private sector.
  Let me give you just a few really very, very recent examples. Two of 
them come from the rescissions bill, which was passed by this Congress 
and signed by the President only a very few months ago. The most recent 
took place only last week. The bill on rescissions was, quite 
obviously, a controversial piece of legislation. And it carried with 
it, in addition to the cancellation of some spending programs, a number 
of substantive provisions. The first rescissions bill passed by this 
Congress was vetoed by President Clinton, as was his perfect right, on 
a number of grounds, one of which was the so-called ``salvage timber'' 
language that was included in that bill. During the period of time 
between that veto and the passage of a second rescissions bill, the 
language on salvage and other timber was negotiated literally line by 
line with the administration. And the administration was consistently 
represented by Assistant Secretary Lyons.
  One of the issues was what timber was covered by one of the 
provisions in the bill. Secretary Lyons argued for a more restrictive 
provision. He ultimately asked those of us who were proponents of the 
language to give him a list of the timber sales that were authorized by 
the bill. That list of timber sales was given to him. The bill was 
passed. The bill was signed by the President of the United States, and 
immediately Assistant Secretary Lyons said that most of the contracts 
that were listed in the very list he had been given would not be 
released. He interpreted the section concerned in the manner he had 
advocated in these negotiations and was rejected by those negotiations.

  His position has already been rejected by a U.S. District Court which 
stated that the meaning of the provision was absolutely clear. In spite 
of that ruling, Secretary Lyons has still not released the timber sales 
and a spokesman for his administration said, ``This ruling was not an 
order. It doesn't direct us to do anything.''
  Obviously, requiring people to go back into court, once again, to 
enforce what Secretary Lyons understood to be the law before the law 
was passed, understood what it was after it was passed, understood it 
was after the court ruled, and understands what it is today.
  Another provision in the same timber language for rescission had to 
do with other timber sales.
  There was an extensive debate over the definition of a phrase ``known 
to be nesting.'' We stated it meant (A), Secretary Lyons insisted it be 
amended to have the meaning (B). Secretary Lyons' position was rejected 
and the land which was stated to have meaning (A) was adopted and 
signed by the President.
  Secretary Lyons immediately interpreted it to mean what he had asked 
us to change it to unsuccessfully. That matter is now in court.
  Just last week, Assistant Secretary Lyons caused to be issued a final 
rule for the implementation of a 1990 law entitled the Forest Resources 
Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990, dealing primarily with 
the export of logs from State and Federal lands. Mr. President, that 
law was passed in 1990.
  A proposed rule has been under discussion literally for years and the 
companies involved in this business have managed their business in 
accordance with that proposed rule.
  On September 8, Assistant Secretary Lyons issued a final rule for the 
implementation of the 1990 law dramatically different from the proposed 
rule--dramatically different--without having had any hearings or having 
given any notification as to those changes, as to those differences.
  That new rule will require dramatically different business practices 
on the part of persons in the timber industry, the failure to observe, 
which will subject them to great fines in business penalties. Yet, 
Secretary Lyons made the rule effective immediately.
  The burden he has imposed is an impossible burden to meet. Later on 
this evening I believe that we here will adopt an amendment to this 
bill directing that there be a 120-day period after the time of the 
promulgation of that rule until it becomes effective, so that people 
can at least change their business practices so that they are operating 
in accordance with the law. Making it effective immediately can only 
have been designed to persecute business enterprises engaged in this 
business who had no notice of what was going to be included in this 
rule whatever.
  Mr. President, other Senators have told me of numerous occasions on 
which they have been given specific assurances of a matter of fact by 
the Assistant Secretary, only to have his actions dramatically and 
diametrically opposed to the commitments that he has made.
  Mr. President, this is a Federal officeholder who operates outside of 
the law who believes that the law is whatever he feels appropriate 
policy is and who ignores actions by the Congress of the United States 
totally and diametrically opposed to his philosophies.
  This is not an amendment that results from a disagreement on a matter 
of policy. It is an amendment to sanction an individual by removing the 
Forest Service from his jurisdiction for deliberate falsehoods to the 
Congress of the United States and for deliberate violations of the law. 
It should not be treated on a partisan matter. It should not be treated 
in the manner in which Members vote to defend actions of this sort.
  All of us are implicated by this kind of lawless action on the part 
of an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. All of us, by voting in favor 
of this amendment, can pass on the message which should be a message 
for all administrations of both parties under any set of 

[[Page S13823]]
circumstances, that policy differences in a free country are totally 
and completely appropriate, but that the law, the administrative law 
which applies to a given Department, must be honestly and forthrightly 
carried out by that Department.
  That is not the case with this Assistant Secretary, Mr. President. It 
is dramatically not the case. We should sanction, by the adoption of 
the Stevens amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Stevens 
amendment. I want to share with Members why I will be voting for that 
amendment.
  Mr. President, we had discussed on this floor some of the problems 
associated with water policy during the current administration and 
prior administrations. This may seem somewhat far afield for Members 
who come from States where they have ample water and great resources, 
but, Mr. President, let me assure you the principle involved in it is 
extremely important for all of us.
  The problem revolves around the ability to cross Federal grounds or 
use Federal grounds under a permit. That is an important question in 
Colorado because 37 percent of the State is owned by the Federal 
Government. Obviously, in Alaska it is a much higher percentage.
  Let me suggest it is a question that every single Member of the 
Senate has to be concerned about. If the Federal Government owned title 
to a property, your State may need to get a permit to cross that ground 
to put down a utility line, to put down a waterline, to put down a 
sewer line, to lay highways and so on.
  The reality is, Mr. President, the ability to get permits to cross or 
use Federal ground is essential for every State in this Nation. It is 
part of being good partners and part of working together.
  What happens when those permits run out? The permits vary in length. 
In Colorado, they can be issued for 20 years, and some of the 
extensions have gone beyond that period.
  What happens when a permit expires? Does it mean ``tear down the 
highway"? Does it mean dig up the lines? Does it mean close down 
municipal drinking water? Believe it or not, the State of Colorado was 
faced with that decision.
  The Forest Service, under a previous administration--not this 
administration, but the previous administration--suggested that for 
cities to renew their permit for a water line across Federal property, 
they would have to surrender a portion of their water rights. These 
offers to surrender a city's water rights started at a third with 
subsequent offers made for less than that.
  Literally, the Forest Service suggested that to renew a Government 
permit to carry vital drinking water across Federal property, with no 
change whatever in function, the city would have to surrender a third 
of their water rights or less to renew their permits.
  Frankly, some of Colorado's cities did not have a choice. They had to 
cross Federal grounds to get water from the reservoir to the city and 
its inhabitants. ``Extortion'' is not too strong a word to describe 
that policy.
  As all Members can understand, strong protests were raised, and when 
it was brought to the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture, 
Secretary Madigan wrote me a letter and reversed the policy, directing 
his Department to issue renewals of permits without conditioning them 
on the forfeiture of a city's water rights.
  Mr. President, Secretary Madigan's policy is very important. It 
corrects a practice that I believe was not only illegal but terribly 
unfair and damaging to the citizens of Colorado and, frankly, damaging 
to the citizens of any State that is dependent upon Federal permits to 
receive their water.
  Why should I offer that background for this particular amendment? I 
offer that background because, included in the information I will 
submit at this point in the Record, are a series of letters that I 
received from Secretary Madigan as he put that policy into place. Those 
letters formed the core of the policy followed by the Secretary of 
Agriculture which relates to the current Secretary and the current 
Under Secretary of Agriculture.
  Because renewing Federal permits is a continuing problem and a 
continuing concern, when the current Under Secretary came before the 
Subcommittee for Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry of the 
House Agriculture Committee, Under Secretary Lyons was called before 
that committee to testify. He was asked directly about the Madigan 
letter and that very important policy. Let me quote from Congressman 
Allard.

       . . . I'd like to proceed to a letter that was written to 
     Senator Brown in 1992 by then-Secretary of Agriculture 
     Madigan. And in that letter he said, and I quote from the 
     letter, ``I want to assure you that it is the policy of the 
     Forest Service to ensure the private property rights, 
     including water rights will be recognized and protected in 
     the course of special use permitting decisions for existing 
     water supply facilities. In addition, the Forest Service will 
     recognize and respect the role of the States [in] water 
     allocation and administration.''

  Mr. President, that is a quote from the letter and the commitment of 
Secretary of Agriculture Madigan.
  Congressman Allard is asking Mr. Lyons if that is still their policy. 
His response as is apparent, and included in the transcript from that 
record is this: ``Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, we still operate in that 
manner.''
  Congressman Allard had quoted to him the Madigan letter and the 
policy and asked if that is still the Agriculture Department's policy 
and Mr. Lyons responds yes, it is. And indicates they operate in that 
manner.
  Later on, Congressman Allard quotes again and says:

       Well, I would just remind you that and refer you back to 
     the letter of Secretary Madigan, of which you said you 
     haven't changed the policies from that letter, that you do 
     recognize the role of the States in water allocation 
     administration. And if you do recognize that, then there 
     shouldn't be a constant demand for water.

  Mr. President, he said that. Again, Under Secretary Lyons did not 
correct it.
  What is wrong with this? The date of that testimony was February 15, 
1995, earlier this year.
  What is wrong with it is this. Just recently, on September 8 we were 
advised by Mr. Lyons and his staff that the Madigan letter, which he 
had said was still in effect when he testified on February 15, had been 
withdrawn, in effect repealed, and all of the letter was no longer the 
policy of the administration.
  Moreover he said the withdrawal of that letter was done in August 
1994. Mr. President, what is apparent here is that the recorded 
testimony of the Under Secretary about the specific provision was not 
correct. And, moreover, he had to have known it was not correct at the 
time.
  Mr. President, what this man did was mislead the congressional 
committee in response to direct questions on a direct subject.
  As Under Secretary, he is in immediate supervision of the Forest 
Service. One may disagree with the policy--although I doubt if any 
Member would want their State to have permits for crossing Federal 
grounds canceled or have water extorted from their cities, or other 
extortive conditions placed upon the continued functioning of their 
cities or towns. But one may disagree about the policies. Nonetheless, 
this question with the Under Secretary is not about the policy. Men and 
women of good faith and good conscience can disagree about the policy. 
But the Under Secretary has a responsibility to the Senate and to the 
House and to this Government that goes beyond simply giving the 
President his best advice and doing the kind of job that he feels is 
appropriate. He has a responsibility to be honest and candid and frank 
with the American people and with committees of this Congress.
  If this Congress turns a blind eye to an administration official who 
comes, testifies and misleads congressional committees, we forfeit our 
legitimate and important role of overview and oversight of the 
executive branch. In addition, we forfeit our elected responsibilities 
in ensuring that critical administrative policy decisions that affect 
the most basic needs of the citizens in our States are subject to the 
voices of the elected representatives of the people.
  This case is as clear as it can be. We have the testimony from the 
committee--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript 
of the hearing be printed in the Record of our proceedings at this 
point. 

[[Page S13824]]

  I also ask unanimous consent that copies of the letter that Mr. 
Allard and I sent to Secretary Glickman, and copies of the letters we 
received in 1992 from Secretary of Agriculture Madigan, be printed in 
the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research and 
  Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 
             104th Congress, 1st Session, February 15, 1995

       Mr. Allard. Mr. Lyons, I want to thank you for showing up 
     to testify before this Committee.
       I would agree with you that there are a lot of good things 
     about the way the water is managed in Colorado. In fact, that 
     is there because of a water management system developed by 
     the State. And many of the streams that you talked about of 
     free flow-in 50 years ago didn't have a flow year-round and 
     today there is a year-round flow.
       And because we provided the laws in order to manage that 
     very valuable resource in the State of Colorado called water 
     so that all the water comes down in the spring doesn't get 
     dissipated out so that when we get into August and into the 
     fall, the streams end up drying up. In fact, I can think of a 
     number of rivers right now where there is a year-round flow 
     out of the State of Colorado, but if you look back into the 
     early journals of the settlers and explorers that came back 
     into the State, they talk about digging down into the sand in 
     order to find the water. In other words, there wasn't a 
     flowing stream of water.
       So in light of that, I'd like to proceed to a letter that 
     was written to Senator Brown in 1992 by then-Secretary of 
     Agriculture Madigan. And in that letter he said, and I quote 
     from the letter, ``I want to assure you that it is the policy 
     of the Forest Service to ensure that private property rights, 
     including water rights, will be recognized and protected in 
     the course of special use permitting decisions for existing 
     water supply facilities. In addition, the Forest Service will 
     recognize and respect the role of the States and (sic--in) 
     water allocation and administration.
       Is this still the Forest Service policy?
       Mr. Lyons. Yes sir, we still operate in that manner.
       Mr. Allard. Can you explain what happened in Arapaho and 
     Roosevelt National Forests with bypass flows, then?
       Mr. Lyons. Well sir, I have with me Forest Supervisor Skip 
     Underwood from the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. he 
     can explain in detail what the negotiations led to in terms 
     of the development of a solution to a concern that was 
     expressed by a number of permittees regarding conditions for 
     their permits.
       But the short of it is we worked with the permittees 
     to develop a joint operating plan for waters flowing in 
     the Cashelocuta drainage. This successfully avoided the 
     need for the establishment of bypass flows, which I think 
     is your primary concern, with the exception of one stream 
     segment, and that was a stream segment which benefitted or 
     which was part of the permit that operated for the benefit 
     of the City of Fort Collins.
       Mr. Allard. The agreement was with Forth Collins. But what 
     about the other communities in that area? You've got Greeley 
     and Loveland and Boulder.
       Mr. Lyons. They were all part of the joint operating plan. 
     And, in fact, we've recently signed easements with all those 
     permittees, for the continued operation of their facilities.
       Mr. Allard. And part of that arrangement was you've 
     demanded as part of the agreement of bypass flow, 
     irregardless of whether that was adjudicated water through 
     the State water courts .
       Mr. Lyons. Well, I don't believe we demanded that, Mr. 
     Chairman, What we attempted to do was determine a mechanism 
     by which we could meet our obligations under law to protect 
     aquatic resources in a manner that would minimize the impact 
     on the permittee. And, in fact, I think the permittee has 
     indicated that he felt that the impacts or the permittee felt 
     that the impacts would be fairly limited.
       Mr. Allard. Well, the point is that you did end up with 
     bypass flows.
       Mr. Lyons. On one segment, yes, sir.
       Mr. Allard. Yes. And you didn't go through the State courts 
     to acquire that water right.
       Mr. Lyons. That was through negotiated agreement with the 
     permittee as a condition of the permit.
       Mr. Allard. So it did avoid the State court provisions.
       Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Mr. Allard. Well, I would just remind you that and refer 
     you back to the letter from Secretary Madigan, of which you 
     said you haven't changed the policies from the letter, that 
     you do recognize the role of the States in water allocation 
     administration. And if you do recognize that, then there 
     shouldn't be a constant demand for water.
       Now you may not have a right, but you ended up with the 
     water. You know, the States have traditionally recognized 
     water as a private property right and has protected that 
     right through their adjudication process, usually in the 
     State court. And all the Western States have that type of 
     legal process. And I think that's of real interest to this 
     Committee. It's certainly of a lot of interest to me 
     personally.
       So I would encourage you work with the State of Colorado 
     through the current water law that they're administering in 
     that State.
       Mr. Lyons. We fully intend to do that, Congressman. As I 
     indicated, we have a whole slew of permits yet to be 
     reviewed. We intend to work with the permittes, with other 
     interested parties, and with the State. And we'll certainly 
     work with you and other members of the delegation to try and 
     achieve a balance in resolving these permit issues.
                                                                    ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, 
           Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research, and 
           Forestry,
                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1995.
     Hon. Dan Glickman,
     Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: On Friday September 8th, your staff 
     asserted in a briefing that the October 6, 1992 letter from 
     Secretary Madigan which confirmed that the Forest Service 
     would not impose new bypass flows on existing water supply 
     facilities had been rescinded in August, 1994. If this 
     assertion by your staff is accurate, we have several very 
     serious concerns about this action.
       First, the interpretation of the law contained in the 
     Madigan letter is not only correct from a legal perspective, 
     but is also critically important to the West. Colorado and 
     other states are experiencing significant growth at a time 
     when it is very difficult to develop new water supplies. This 
     means that the continued availability of existing water 
     supplies is absolutely essential. The illegal imposition of 
     new or additional bypass flow requirements on existing water 
     supplies takes water away from municipalities that need this 
     water to supply and support their citizens and farmers that 
     have long used this water to grow crops. In addition, the 
     loss of these water supplies increases the demand for 
     acquisition of new or substitute water supplies. In the case 
     of Colorado's Front Range, the loss of these existing water 
     supplies increases the need for new water storage facilities, 
     which will have environmental impacts. More importantly, the 
     loss of these supplies also leads to the conversion of 
     agricultural water rights to municipal uses, and the 
     resulting loss of socially and environmentally important open 
     space currently provided by irrigated agriculture.
       Second, the assertions by your staff are directly contrary 
     to explicit representations made by you and Undersecretary 
     Lyons in full Committee and Subcommittee. At a hearing before 
     the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, 
     Research, and Forestry on February 15th of this year, we were 
     assured by Undersecretary Lyons that the Madigan policy was 
     still in effect;
       ``Mr. Allard. Mr. Lyons, I want to thank you for showing up 
     to testify before this Committee.
       ``I would agree with you that there are a lot of good 
     things about the way the water is managed in Colorado. In 
     fact, that is there because of a water management system 
     developed by the State. And many of the streams that you 
     talked about of free flow-in 50 years ago didn't have a flow 
     year-round and today there is a year-round flow.
       ``And because we provided the laws in order to manage that 
     very valuable resource in the State of Colorado called water 
     so that all the water comes down in the spring doesn't get 
     dissipated out so that when we get into August and into fall, 
     the streams end up drying up. In fact, I can think of a 
     number of rivers right now where you look back into the early 
     journals of the settlers and explorers that came to the 
     State, they talk about digging down into the sand in order to 
     find the water. In other words, there wasn't a flowing stream 
     of water.
       ``So in light of that, I'd like to proceed to a letter that 
     was written to Senator Brown in 1992 by then-Secretary of 
     Agriculture Madigan. And in the letter he said, and I quote 
     from the letter, ``I want to assure you that it is the policy 
     of the Forest Service to ensure that private property rights, 
     including water rights, will be recognized and protected in 
     the course of special use permitting decisions for existing 
     water supply facilities. In addition, the Forest Service will 
     recognize and respect the role of the States in [sic-and] 
     water allocation and administration.''
       ``Is this still the Forest Service policy?
       ``Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir, we still operate in that manner.''
       In addition, at a full committee hearing, you also assured 
     the Committee that the Madigan policy was still effective;
       ``Mr. Allard. Mr. Secretary, welcome. I'd like to join some 
     other members of this Committee in congratulating you on your 
     appointment and subsequent confirmation as Secretary of 
     Agriculture. And I do look forward to working with you on the 
     issues that are facing agriculture.
       ``One issue that is particularly important in all of the 
     Western United States is an issue pertaining to water and how 
     the Forest Service is working with the States on the 
     management plans for water.
       ``As you know, the Forest Service has been going around 
     State water laws and demanding bypass water flows. And this 
     has been a concern through 3 Secretaries of Agriculture and 
     two Presidents.
       ``When Secretary Madigan was running the Forest Service, he 
     sent a correspondence to 

[[Page S13825]]
     Senator Brown assuring him that--that's the senator from the State of 
     Colorado--assuring his that it is a policy of the Forest 
     Service to ensure that private property rights, including 
     water rights, will be recognized and protected in the course 
     of special use permitting decisions for existing water supply 
     facilities.
       ``He further stated in his letter, ``In addition, the 
     Forest Service will recognize and respect the role of the 
     States in water allocation and administration.''
       ``Mr. Lyons assured me in February that it is the Forest 
     Service's policy, now that you are heading up the Department 
     do you agree that this should be the policy of the Forest 
     Service?
       ``Mr. Glickman. Absolutely.''
       The entire focus of the Madigan letter was on the issue of 
     bypass flows. The letter promised that the Forest Service 
     would protect private property rights and preserve state 
     water allocation systems, and explicitly explained that this 
     interpretation of the law meant that new bypass flows would 
     not be imposed on existing water supply facilities. Both you 
     and Undersecretary Lyons affirmed, without any qualification, 
     limitation, or exception, Secretary Madigan's interpretation 
     of the law on this issue. In light of your ``absolute'' 
     ratification of these principles, your staff cannot credibly 
     assert that your commitment meant something other than a 
     complete acceptance of Mr. Madigan's conclusion that the 
     Forest Service did not have the legal authority to impose new 
     bypass flows on existing water supply facilities.
       Finally, the purported recision of the Madigan letter 
     occurred over a year ago. Since that time we have discussed 
     the Madigan letter with you and Mr. Lyons on numerous 
     occasions, and made it clear that this is a very important 
     issue. Your failure to even disclose the existence of the 
     August, 1994, action in the course of these subsequent 
     discussions is incomprehensible, particularly in light of 
     your absolute affirmation of the letter before the full 
     committee.
       In light of the withholding of this information, it is 
     necessary for us to obtain, within 30 days of the date of 
     this letter, copies of all documents, including telephone 
     messages and logs, information generated or stored in 
     computerized form (including E-mail), correspondence, 
     memoranda, and other form of data or information in the 
     possession of the Forest Service and USDA which relate or 
     refer to the Madigan letter from November, 1992 through the 
     present time. We would also like a written response by 
     Monday, September 18th as to whether you will comply with 
     this request.
       We are deeply disappointed by this turn of events. We had 
     hoped that you would use your tenure at the Department to 
     ease tensions between western members of Congress, their 
     constituents and the Department. Unfortunately, it appears 
     that instead you are continuing the anti-West agenda this 
     Administration began in 1993.
     Hank Brown,
       Senator.
     Wayne Allard,
       Congressman.
                                                                    ____

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1992.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Hank: Thank you for your August 12 letter regarding 
     the renewal of special-use permits for water supply 
     facilities on the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest in 
     Colorado. I understand the importance of this issue to cities 
     throughout the west that depend on facilities located on 
     national forest lands for their water supplies.
       This is a complex issue, but one that I believe has been 
     resolved in a manner that is satisfactory to all interests. 
     This progress is due in no small part to your ongoing 
     interest and leadership in this important area.
       I want to assure you that it is the policy of the Forest 
     Service to ensure that private property rights, including 
     water rights, will be recognized and protected in the course 
     of special-use permitting decisions for existing water supply 
     facilities. In addition, the Forest Service will recognize 
     and respect the role of the States in water allocation and 
     administration.
       I agree that the Forest Service should not take actions 
     that reduce historical water supplies from facilities located 
     on national forest lands. The Forest Service will reissue 
     permits for existing water supply facilities for 20 years 
     with provisions to recognize and respect both the rights of 
     the applicants and the multiple use objectives of the 
     national forests. New bypass flow requirements will not be 
     imposed on existing water supply facilities. However, unless 
     amended, all permits will authorize only historical water 
     rights associated with existing facilities. The permits will 
     also obligate the permittee to accommodate resource goals of 
     the Forest. This accommodation will be to the extent feasible 
     without diminishing the water yield or substantially 
     increasing the cost of the water yield from the existing 
     facility.
       In summary, special-use permits for existing water supply 
     facilities will:
       Authorize the use, operation, maintenance, repair, and 
     replacement of the existing facilities described in an 
     enclosure to the permit for the exercise of the water rights 
     and water conservation or management practices described in 
     an additional enclosure to the permit. The permit will not 
     authorize expansion or enlargement of the facilities or water 
     rights, water conservation, or management practices described 
     in the enclosure.
       Require the permittee to operate the facilities in a manner 
     that accommodates the resource goals of the national forest 
     without reducing the yield of the water rights or 
     significantly increasing the cost of the water yield from the 
     existing facility.
       Require the permittee to provide the Forest Service, on an 
     annual basis, a copy of the official records of the State 
     agency having responsibility for administration of the water 
     rights for the facilities described in the enclosure.
       I am pleased to see that progress has been made on this 
     issue and will instruct the Forest Service to reissue permits 
     in accordance with this letter. I have asked the Chief of the 
     Forest Service to initiate discussions with local interested 
     parties to identify ways for carrying out the provisions and 
     objectives of the individual permits.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------,
     (For Edward Madigan, Secretary).
                                                                    ____

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 1992.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Hank: This letter is a follow-up to the one I sent to 
     Senator Wallop on October 6 in response to his August 12 
     letter regarding special-use permits for water supply 
     facilities on the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest in 
     Colorado.
       You asked for clarification of what is meant by the 
     following sentence in paragraph 4 of my October 6 letter: 
     ``New bypass flow requirements will not be imposed in 
     existing water supply facilities.''
       The entire October 6 letter is directed at clarifying 
     conditions for renewing permits for existing water supply 
     facilities only, and is not intended to pertain to new water 
     supply facilities or expansions of existing ones.
       An underlying principle for renewing permits for existing 
     facilities, as stated in the same paragraph of the October 6 
     letter as the sentence in question, is: ``. . . unless 
     amended, all permits will authorize only historical water 
     rights associated with existing water supply facilities.'' 
     The sentence in question is intended only to emphasize that 
     no new bypass requirements will be imposed beyond any that 
     may have been specified in the old permit for the existing 
     facility.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------,
     (For Edward Madigan, Secretary).
                                                                    ____

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                 Washington, DC, November 3, 1992.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: Thank you for your September 21 letter 
     to Secretary Edward Madigan on behalf of the cities of 
     Greeley and Loveland, and the Grand County Water and 
     Sanitation District, regarding the Forest Service position on 
     bypass flows. The Secretary has asked me to respond to your 
     letter.
       Secretary Madigan's October 6 letter to you clarified our 
     policy that ensures protection of private property rights, 
     including water rights, when renewing special use permits for 
     existing water supply facilities. This same policy applies to 
     Greeley, Loveland, and the Grand County Water and Sanitation 
     District facilities. The Forest Service will reissue special 
     use permits for the city of Loveland's hydroelectric project 
     on the Big Thompson River and Public Service Company of 
     Colorado's hydroelectric project on Middle Boulder Creek 
     consistent with the conditions of the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission licenses for the two projects.
       We appreciate the interest of the respective City Officials 
     in operating these facilities in harmony with the 
     environment. The Forest Service will continue to work with 
     the municipalities to achieve this objective.
           Sincerely,

                                               John H. Beuter,

                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
     Natural Resources and Environment.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the documentation is clear. I see before us 
on our desk a letter from Secretary Dan Glickman. Mr. President, I want 
to tell you I have the utmost respect for Secretary Glickman. I served 
with him in the House. I know him to be a person of integrity and 
honesty. We did not always agree but I respect his judgment and I 
respect his honesty. I do not believe Secretary Glickman would ever 
intentionally mislead this body or mislead the House or mislead anyone 
else. He is a person whose word can be counted on.
  That does not mean that he was never incorrect. All of us get 
inaccurate information and Members will see referenced in those items a 
question that was raised. But I have no doubt in my mind that Secretary 
Glickman was honest and forthright and gave the best information which 
he had been given by his staff.
  Mr. President, the question that is before us does not simply concern 
Secretary Glickman's letter. It ought to 

[[Page S13826]]
be given heavy weight. He is a thoughtful, reasonable person and his 
preferences deserve significant consideration. But as Members ponder 
the question placed before us by Senator Stevens, they must also ask 
themselves this question: What do you do with an official who is 
actively involved and supervises the repeal of a major policy decision 
in 1994, and a few months later in testimony before Congress conceals 
the fact that the policy decision was reversed and the letter stating 
it withdrawn, and in fact testifies to the contrary?
  Mr. President, this Senate must act. We cannot turn a blind eye. If 
we are to complete our responsibilities and do our job, we must insist 
that the Under Secretary either be frank, straightforward, and honest 
with Congress or we must get a new Under Secretary.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I must disagree with my good friend. I 
understand his concern. I understand his disagreement with the Under 
Secretary. But I hope one might take a look at the letter from the 
Secretary of Agriculture. Let me read one of the things Secretary 
Glickman says.

       When Congress differs with the Department's policies 
     carried out by the Under Secretary, I recommend, and hope, we 
     debate those policies on their merits; we will arrive at a 
     much more satisfactory resolution of whatever disagreements 
     may exist than we would by permitting policy debates to 
     devolve into personalities.

  The Secretary, who was a distinguished Member of Congress himself, 
was not unaware of how Members of Congress can express dissatisfaction 
with administration and administration policies. The Secretary served 
here in both Democrat and Republican administrations, as have I and the 
Secretary, like I have, would disagree with policies of both Democrat 
and Republican administrations and would fight to change those 
policies. But he, like I, would not think to do it by making basically 
personal attacks, an ad hominem attack against a member of the 
administration.
  Secretary Glickman goes on to say:

       The amendments would, if adopted, set an alarming precedent 
     that will no doubt continue under future Administrations. The 
     precedent will, I fear, encumber, not enhance, our ability to 
     resolve disagreements and will unnecessarily complicate 
     arriving at mutually acceptable public policies.

  Frankly, if each time we disagree with the Secretary, or anybody 
else, if we take our disagreement to the floor and try to eliminate 
that person's job, I agree that is not the precedent to set. I say that 
again, as one who, over 21 years here, has disagreed with policies set 
by those in the administration, both Democrat and Republican. But where 
we have disagreed I have sought ways to change those policies either by 
going directly to the administration and, when unsuccessful there, to 
write new legislation that might change the policy. I cannot recall any 
time that I sought to eliminate the person's job in doing it because I 
daresay in virtually any policy that is going on in any administration 
with 100 of us, there are going to be 40 to 50 different disagreements.

  Are we going to be here as in the Dracula hours of legislation, those 
hours when actually legislation gets voted on after dark, after our 
families have gone home, after our families have gone to bed, and in 
keeping with the new family-friendly Congress, when we finally get 
around to decide to start voting on these things? Are we going to have 
40, 50, 60 amendments out here attacking 40, 50, 60 individuals in the 
administration, this administration or the next administration or the 
administration after that? I do not think it is the way to do it. It 
does not make for good legislation. It does not make for good public 
policy, and it does not change things that we might want to change.
  It is far better, if we have differences, to go to the Cabinet member 
who is the head of the agency. I know Dan Glickman, the Secretary of 
Agriculture. I daresay there is not a Member of this body who, if he or 
she called Secretary Glickman, who would not get a phone call back 
immediately, and they would be able to talk to him.
  I have worked with Secretary Lyons, who I have found to be very 
helpful. I have found him to be very forthright, forthright not to tell 
me when he disagrees with me, and he will not do the things I might 
want. But we either agree or we disagree. If we go off and say that 
somehow because we disagree with him because of the law that he should 
be stripped of his authority, would we not have done that in the past 
administration? If we wanted to do that, think of the previous 
Assistant Secretary under the Bush administration.
  The Federal court in Seattle found the Bush administration had 
violated the National Forest Management Act. That is not just one 
individual Senator's feeling that maybe they were not following the 
law; a Federal court found they violated the act. Have we seen Members 
of the Senate on either side of the aisle rush to the floor to 
introduce legislation to say the Bush administration has been found by 
the Federal courts to be in violation of the law, and, thus, the 
Assistant Secretary who is in charge of carrying out that law--we are 
going to get rid of him? I do not recall anybody doing that.
  Nobody went to strip Assistant Secretary Jim Moseley of his 
authority. What we did was say here is what the Federal court has 
ruled. Here is what we are going to do as a law, and, if we want some 
changes in that law so they will fit under our policies, we will vote 
and we will change the law. But nobody came in here and said the 
Federal court has said the Bush administration is not following the 
law, and therefore, we are going to strip the Assistant Secretary.
  We have a difference of policy. We have a difference of policy. We 
are not changing policy by legislatively firing somebody. Section 318 
means in the end it is going to have to be decided by the courts. If we 
fire every Assistant Secretary who loses a lawsuit, we would have fired 
a whole lot in the last administration and, I suspect, the 
administrations before them. But that is not the precedent that we want 
to start.
  I have found the Assistant Secretary to be forthright in his dealings 
with me. Like everybody else in this administration, I found times when 
I agree and sometimes when I disagree. I have found disagreements in 
the members of the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the 
Reagan administration, the Carter administration, the Ford 
administration, and all administrations which I served in. I do not 
ever recall having a disagreement with anybody in any one of those 
administrations where I came in the floor and said, ``Let us pass a law 
to fire him'' because of my disagreement with him. I would not want to 
see that precedent started. I did not see that precedent in the Ford 
administration nor the Carter administration nor the Bush 
administration, and I certainly would not want to see something to 
start in the present administration.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator recall a precedent of Jamie Whitten 
securing the defunding of precisely this position in 1987 for about the 
same reasons? This is not a partisan matter. This is not a personality 
matter. This has happened before. It is not a precedent.
  Does the Senator know that?
  Mr. LEAHY. I can think only of the things I recall on the floor of 
the Senate, and that was not a matter I recall on the floor of the 
Senate, I say to my friend from Alaska. I am saying we can change 
policy. We can vote to change policies. But I do not ever recall voting 
to support the legislative firing of any member of any administration, 
Republican or Democrat. That is not the way we do things in Vermont. 
That is not the way I do things.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this is not a question of changing the law 
or not changing the law. As the Senator from Washington pointed out, we 
passed a law in the rescissions bill to facilitate the Forest Service 
to carry out salvaging timber operations. The law was changed, and 
immediately after that in dealing with Mr. Lyons, he did not agree with 
the law, and said as much, and said, ``I am not real happy about that. 
I do not think I will carry it out.'' And he said it before a 

[[Page S13827]]
committee, the Energy Committee. So we changed the law.
  If he has been less than candid and straightforward with the 
committees and with the Congress of the United States of America, can 
we also say that maybe he is less than candid when he starts advising 
his President and the President has to start making decisions based on 
the information given to him by the Under Secretary of Agriculture?
  I am saying the credibility has disappeared. And he is not serving 
his President or this country very well. In that rescissions law there 
was nothing in there that told the Under Secretary of Agriculture to 
sign a memorandum of agreement with four other agencies or three other 
agencies in order to carry out the salvaging of timber, both that 
timber that was damaged by fire, the fires of 1988 and the fires of 
1994, or the dead and dying trees that we have in our National Forest. 
For, you see, when a tree dies, the longer it stands it loses value, 
and pretty soon the value is such that they will not be bid on at all.
  So if you do not like the policy that has been put forth even by the 
President or by the Congress, you go into a delaying action. Basically, 
that is what has happened here. So it is not a question of partisan 
politics.
  It is a question of arrogance, a question of being less than candid 
and less than straightforward with the Congress of the United States, 
and I would also say probably with the President and his people who 
have to make decisions on policy with regard to management of natural 
resources on our public lands.
  That is what this debate is all about. My heavens, if it was one 
person who disagreed with Mr. Lyons, I do not think you would hear 
anybody standing on this floor supporting this amendment. So the 
frequency and the variety of it also lends to that of being pretty much 
on target whenever we start trying to make some policy decisions. Here 
is somebody who is getting in the way of public land managers, 
professional land managers who know how to manage national forests, who 
know how to grow and harvest a product for the United States of America 
and for all the people who live here and yet has his own personal 
little agenda, and he disregards the law of the land in his dealings 
with the Congress of the United States.
  So I rise in support of the Stevens amendment. It is not an action 
that we enjoy. It is not an action that is without precedents. In fact, 
it is an action that we would try not to be a part of but is serious.
  So I support the Stevens amendment, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I feel inclined to share with my 
colleagues my own personal feeling about the process that is underway 
here. Ordinarily, the President has the right to name his team to carry 
out his policies, and that is just the way it goes. You may not agree 
with those policies from time to time, but ordinarily we are able to 
work under a situation where we are able to communicate our point of 
view. While we may not always prevail in a situation such as we have 
here, where we have both the House and the Senate controlled by one 
party and our executive branch controlled by another party, we can 
still communicate and maintain a dialog and represent our 
constituencies.
  Now, we are able to do that with the Secretary of Agriculture. There 
is absolutely no question. We have invited him up to our State of 
Alaska. He has met with us. We have expressed concerns. He has been 
responsive. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about the Under 
Secretary for Natural Resources, Under Secretary Lyons.
  I serve as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 
The Under Secretary has appeared before us on numerous occasions. While 
this debate may seem a debate focused on the West, let us remember that 
we have some unique natural resources, and timber is certainly one of 
them. We are blessed with those resources. Timber is a renewable 
resource. There is an industry that is dependent on it. It previously 
had been managed within the Forest Service by professionals who have 
dedicated themselves to, and come from, an approach to forest 
management based on the renewability of that resource. We need wood 
fiber; we need timber; we need paper products. With proper management 
we have that capability on a sustained basis.
  That has been the whole concept of harvesting within our national 
forests. For the most part, that process has worked. Unfortunately, we 
seem to have in Mr. Lyons an Under Secretary who is going to manage 
lands as he sees how the public lands should be managed as opposed to 
the professionals.
  We have seen a mass exit of professional forest managers from the 
Forest Service within the last few years. That is, indeed, unfortunate. 
It is my understanding that the proposal from the senior Senator from 
Alaska would be to not fund the Office of Under Secretary for Natural 
Resources. It has been addressed that, indeed, this is not a precedent. 
It has been done before. The purpose would be to transfer his reporting 
authority directly to the Secretary.
  I hope my colleagues who are not from the West have listened to this 
debate carefully, because you have heard from all points of the West. 
You have not just heard from Alaska or Colorado. You have heard from 
Washington; you have heard from Idaho; you have heard from Montana. All 
of these are areas that have been heavily impacted by this Under 
Secretary's management according to the world as he sees it.
  I am not going to repeat the specific points that have been brought 
up, the references to meetings, the references to not carrying out what 
were perceived agreements. But clearly, Members of the Senate, we have 
here an Under Secretary whose policies are not working. They are not 
working in communications with us. They are not working in concert with 
us.
  I think it is appropriate to reflect that, in the last year of the 
Clinton administration, this is the first time we have had this unique 
situation where we have an individual with whom we simply cannot deal. 
So I would encourage you to reflect that something is clearly wrong 
here. We have a situation that is not working.
  This is an extreme action, I agree, but we have had many 
conversations. We have tried to work out differences. But he seems to 
have a personal agenda virtually disregarding those of us who have a 
dependence on the national forests.
  This is simply not the way to carry out public administrative 
responsibility. I can honestly say in my efforts to communicate with 
Mr. Lyons, I found a total insensitivity in the manner in which, while 
listening to our concerns, there was virtually no policy direction 
toward the points that we made or the people who were affected in our 
various States.
  So I think this action is in order. And while I listened to the 
comments from the Senator from Vermont suggesting this is not the way 
to do things, I do not know how we should do things relative to the 
manner in which Mr. Lyons is carrying out his responsibilities, because 
it is simply not working. It is not my intent, by any means, to 
embarrass the administration. If this were a different situation, 
different administration, and we had the same set of circumstances, I 
would like to think I would be up here doing the same thing. I firmly 
believe we have an extraordinary situation that we simply cannot 
ignore, and we would be shirking our responsibilities as Senators 
representing States with national forest lands to just suggest this is 
a situation we can live with, because clearly we cannot. So I intend to 
support the Stevens amendment.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I 
would like to yield to my colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bumpers, for 
yielding. I am here, Mr. President, not to participate in this debate 
but just to state that it is now 8:20 p.m. There seems to be a large 
number of Senators gathering in the Senate.
  I assume that means there are going to be more speakers. I am just 
wondering if we could get some sort of word 

[[Page S13828]]
from the distinguished manager as to whether we might set a time 
certain to vote on this amendment or as to the possibility of perhaps 
stacking this vote early in the morning with another series of votes, 
otherwise we might go until midnight and never have a vote. I am just 
wondering if the distinguished manager might comment on this.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield to me.
  I am prepared to respond and advise the Senate that the majority 
leader has given his consent and as a matter of fact requested that we 
try to identify the amendments, get time agreements on them, and stack 
votes tomorrow, and vote on final passage tomorrow. The point is, that 
we will continue to work here tonight though on those amendments we 
cannot agree on for votes, and with time agreements tomorrow. So this 
may not be the end of the session as far as the managers are concerned 
and Senators who have amendments.
  But we know of, for instance, this amendment which will require a 
vote. We know the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Nevada, have 
another amendment on the Market Promotion Program; and that will 
require a rollcall vote. The Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, 
has an amendment to strike special grants, research grants from this 
bill. And we cannot accept that, so we will have to move to table that 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  Those are three amendments that I know of that will require rollcall 
votes. We hope that the others will either not be offered or we can 
accept them on a voice vote and work out something that is satisfactory 
that would not require a rollcall vote. We are trying to see if we can 
do final passage on a voice vote. I would have no objection to that, if 
no one Senator insists on a rollcall vote. That means we could vote on 
the conference report when it comes back with a rollcall vote.
  I am told we do have to have one vote. We have to vote on the Stevens 
amendment. I have just been advised on that. It would be nice if 
everybody got their stories straight and requests before I made these 
announcements like I knew what I was doing.
  Mr. LEAHY. Why do we not just vote on it?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I think we are prepared to vote. There are a couple 
other Senators that need to speak on the Stevens amendment. Why do not 
we do this and get the Stevens amendment over, and as we vote on that 
we can announce the schedule for the evening and tomorrow rather than 
talk about what we are doing. Rather than talk about it, let us just do 
it.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will be very brief, and following the 
few remarks I have will move to table the amendment. So we will have a 
vote here very shortly.
  First of all, I want to say that I understand some of the 
frustrations my Western Senator friends experience. Let me also say 
that while I am not a Western Senator, I have experienced a lot of the 
same frustrations but in other areas. I got terribly agitated at one 
time about the National Forest Service not allowing what I thought was 
an adequate timber cut in the Ouachitas and Ozarks that was having an 
adverse effect on the industry.
  But let me just say--and I do not want to argue about these specific 
things. I know that Judge Hogan handed the Northwest a big victory this 
week in Federal court. That is exactly where these issues ought to be 
resolved. I labored 12 years under Presidents Reagan and Bush 
disagreeing with a vast majority of their policies and their 
interpretations of the law.
  When I was Governor--and this is not unusual at the State level--
occasionally some legislator would establish some little cabal with 
other members of the legislature because they had it in for somebody 
because they did not get what they wanted, and I would invariably have 
to deal with them or use a line-item veto.
  Now, Mr. President, bear in mind we have serious disagreements on 
policy around here. We have serious disagreements on the interpretation 
of the law. Some people hate the Endangered Species Act and they do not 
want it enforced under any conditions, and so any excuse they can find 
to lambaste whoever is charged with the responsibility of enforcing it 
becomes the focal point.
  But the Senate cannot be judge, jury and executioner under our 
Constitution. The genius of the Constitution is we have three branches 
of the Federal Government, Mr. President. And there is not a single 
Member of Congress that would change one jot and tittle. Sometimes 
there are so many changes proposed around here on the Constitution you 
would think it was just a rough draft, and that we were charged with 
the responsibility of finishing it.
  Whether you like Bill Clinton or not, he is the President. Whether 
you like the people he hired or not, that is his prerogative. Whether 
you like the policy or not, they are charged under the last election 
with the responsibility of setting policy. And if you do not like the 
way they enforce the law, take them to court, as the Northwest did. 
Judge Hogan just gave, as I say, I think 1,700,000,000 feet. And that 
is a real victory for Oregon and Washington. I might also say that it 
was Bill Clinton who went to the Northwest and crafted a plan, which 
somebody said tonight Secretary Lyons was the focal point of this 
debate, Secretary Lyons crafted the agreement, and got it out from the 
court.
  Let me remind you of something. The Northwest had been stopped dead 
in its tracks for timber cutting, long before Bill Clinton was elected 
President, by the courts. And because of the Constitution, there is not 
anything much anybody can do about that except appeal it or elect 
somebody who will change the law.
  So I just want to say, I might agree with the Senator from Alaska 
about a particular personality, I might even agree with the Senators 
from Alaska, Montana and Colorado and Idaho on a policy that I think 
the administration is wrong on. But I have never, nor will I ever, come 
to the floor of the U.S. Senate and try to cut somebody's salary off or 
say, ``You may not, Mr. Secretary, delegate this responsibility and 
that responsibility to this person or this office.''
  This amendment does not categorically say that we are cutting the 
salary of Secretary Lyons. What it says is we are giving the money from 
his office to the Secretary, and the Secretary is charged with the 
responsibility of taking away from Secretary Lyons any responsibility 
in the area he now administers relating to forest management issues. It 
is a dangerous precedent.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to remind my good friends over on the 
Republican side of the aisle, things always change. There is just a 
possibility, just a possibility, that one day in the not too distant 
future there will be more seats on this side of the aisle than there 
are on that side, there will be a Republican in the White House. You 
set a precedent like this, those things that are bad policy for the 
U.S. Senate have a tendency to come home to haunt you.
  It is a very bad, in my opinion, flailing of the Constitution to say, 
``Mr. Executive Branch, we will decide who you can hire. We will decide 
who you can keep.''
  We are the legislative branch. We should recognize it and we ought to 
honor the Constitution and the legislative branch.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment there is not a sufficient 
second.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not know how many more people want 
to speak around here. Everybody has been parading to my desk to say, 
``Let us vote. Let us vote.'' I thought everybody on this side that 
spoke--even the Senator from Idaho had forsaken his chance for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator not move to table for maybe 5, 6 
minutes? I think the Senator from Idaho would 

[[Page S13829]]
like to make a brief statement, and certainly I would like to make a 
brief statement.
  I would urge the Senator to withhold.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want people who have not spoken to have 
the opportunity to do so. If the Senator from Idaho wants to speak for 
5 minutes; the Senator from Montana wants to speak for 5 minutes, I am 
not going to disagree with them.

  Let me propound this unanimous consent request: That the Senator from 
Idaho be given 5 minutes and the Senator from Montana 5 minutes, after 
which I will be recognized to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a great deal of what the Senator from 
Arkansas has spoken to this evening is true. He and I do not disagree 
in the way that policy should be managed. We may disagree on the 
substance of policy, but I think both he and I respect the process, and 
we certainly respect the law.
  The great frustration we have this evening, Mr. President, when we 
talk about this particular Under Secretary, is his arrogance in 
ignoring the law. Right after this administration came to power and 
this Under Secretary took power, he inherited a set of draft 
regulations that were being formulated as a result of this Congress 
under Democrat rule having passed an appropriations bill with appeals 
language. Very specifically, that bill spoke to the kind of appeals 
language we wanted to see inside the U.S. Forest Service.
  This Under Secretary ignored that law, ignored the draft regulations, 
and went in an opposite direction totally. That is why we have this 
fight on the floor tonight. Amongst other things, he ignored the law. 
He ignored law that was crafted by a majority Democrat Party of the 
U.S. Senate.
  That is the reality we are facing. Try to find a reason to defend 
this man for his actions and my guess is, you will have difficulty.
  I would like to add to the Record a letter tonight which speaks to 
how this Under Secretary has handled his responsibility.
  This letter is addressed to Michelle Gilbert, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and it says:

       This letter is to inform you that the Northwest Forest 
     Resource Council will move this week for an order to show 
     cause to hold Jim Lyons in contempt of court.

  Yes, the judge ruled, but Under Secretary Lyons ignores. That is what 
we are facing.
  I would agree with you, we should not be crafting policy in the 
public courts of this land, but when a member of this administration 
ignores the law and the court tells him to do something and he 
continues to ignore it, then one finds it necessary to move for 
contempt of court. It is beyond my memory that any member of the Bush 
administration was held in contempt of court. That is why I very 
reluctantly agree with the Senator from Alaska.
  This is no way to deal with anyone in Government, but when nothing 
else can deliver the message to this person, and now he is being held 
in contempt of court, it is time that this Senate speaks out. Time and 
time again, he has ignored our actions.
  I cannot understand why anyone from either side of the aisle would 
argue in defense of this person when he puts together a Forest Service 
reorganization plan and begins to implement it and does not even seek 
our counsel. We have that responsibility to craft public policy. We 
demanded that he come up here, and that was a bipartisan request.
  The Senator from Montana is here. The Under Secretary attempted to 
wipe out a major unit of the Forest Service in that Senator's State. 
And we said, ``No, that is no way to run this place. Come sit down with 
us and work out the differences,'' and we finally forced him to do 
that.
  That is why the Senator from Alaska, and a good many of us, have 
thrown our hands in the air and said, ``What are we to do if we write 
law and it is ignored. This individual is ultimately gutting an 
organization in a way that makes it incapable of managing the public 
laws of this land that we have passed?''
  So I hope tonight the Senate will uphold the motion of the Senator 
from Alaska and not vote to table. I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not going to take my full 5 minutes. 
We are presented with a problem here. On the one hand, those of us who 
know Under Secretary Lyons, who have dealt with him, at the very least, 
question his policies and question the advisability of him staying in 
office. On the other hand, I think we all agree that it probably is not 
wise, and it is not good policy to fire somebody by legislation.
  The better route would be for us to change policy when we disagree 
with what an administration is doing, and work to try to get the person 
involved to change the views he has taken.
  I, frankly, am disappointed with Under Secretary Lyons for many 
reasons. I supported his confirmation, voted for the confirmation. 
Unfortunately, due to a whole host of things that have occurred, some 
of which have been referred to tonight, I must say the time has come, 
in my judgment, for Under Secretary Lyons to gracefully tender his 
resignation.
  I do not support the amendment before us, only because I think this 
is just not good policy. It is not good policy for us by legislation to 
fire somebody in the executive branch. There are better ways of doing 
this. I urge Senators to not support the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Alaska. But I also urge Under Secretary Lyons to not only 
listen to the words, but listen to the music and realize that he should 
probably leave.
  We have a saying in the West that when someone has crossed the line 
and gone too far ``he's broken his pick.'' Regrettably, Under Secretary 
Lyons has broken his pick in the West. The time has come to make some 
changes, not by legislation, but by urging Secretary Lyons and the 
administration to find some graceful way for him to no longer hold the 
position that he now has.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I strongly urge 
not only Under Secretary Lyons but others involved to take appropriate 
action and put this matter to rest.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and 
the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
absent due to illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], 
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. 
Johnston], the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 446 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm 

[[Page S13830]]

     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Dorgan
     Glenn
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Moynihan
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2696) was 
rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2696) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous-
consent agreement in hopes the Senate will approve our setting over 
until tomorrow all remaining votes on amendments that require votes. So 
I put the following request.
  I ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments in order to 
H.R. 1976 under the previous consent agreement must be offered and 
debated tonight and that any rollcall votes ordered with respect to 
those amendments be postponed to occur beginning at 9:45 a.m. on 
Wednesday.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FORD. He is just reserving.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the managers, we have worked for 
some time today to try to figure out if there was a way of working out 
an amendment. We have just received word from CBO that the means of 
paying for it are not acceptable, and I am wondering if there is a way 
for us to have the evening and potentially a vote tomorrow; that we 
have a place reserved for a vote if we are able to find an offset, but 
one that might not be agreed to on both sides so that we can at least 
have a vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield under his 
reservation, I think that certainly would be possible in this way. The 
Senator can offer his amendment tonight, say whatever he wanted to in 
support of it, and I could move to table it and ask for the yeas and 
nays. That will be voted on tomorrow. The Senator could be assured that 
there would be a vote on his amendment tomorrow.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me ask this. Will the managers agree to permit me to 
modify the amendment, if we were able to find an alternative means of 
financing it, overnight, working collectively, together?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I 
certainly would not arbitrarily or capriciously refuse a legitimate 
request for a modification. If the amendment is changed entirely in its 
nature, I could not agree to that.
  Mr. CONRAD. No, if we were to have a gentleman's understanding--I 
have full faith in the word of the Senator from Mississippi and in his 
good faith.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I think the Senator could be assured we would not 
arbitrarily refuse such a request.
  Mr. CONRAD. That will certainly be sufficient for me. Would we be 
modifying, then, this unanimous-consent agreement, or would it not 
require a modification?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I do not think it is necessary with that understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Mississippi?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from North 
Dakota has an amendment for which he has not yet found a suitable 
offset. It needs to be understood by everybody, if he offers the 
amendment tonight he will be offering it without an offset. That is, I 
assume, the modification that he wants to make, as soon as he hears 
from CBO.
  What we need to clarify for sure is, if the Senator from Mississippi 
moves to table his amendment tonight, the agreement should be that even 
though a motion to table had been made, that he would have a right 
before the vote tomorrow to modify, to set out what the offset is. Is 
that a fair statement?
  Mr. COCHRAN. That accurately reflects my assurance and the 
understanding I would be happy to have with the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a minute? I ask the manager of 
the bill, should that not be in the agreement? If the offset is found, 
it has to be agreeable, I suspect, to the manager. You just would not 
take any arbitrary offset.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am not agreeing to support the amendment, that is what 
I am saying.
  Mr. FORD. I just want to be sure that someone who is not here 
tonight, in all respect to their position and their ability, if it is 
not in the unanimous-consent agreement and they come in here and object 
to it--even though the Senator is very persuasive that does not 
happen--then my friend from North Dakota is excluded, I think, from 
making his modification once the Senator has moved to table and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I respect the suggestion. I have no problem including 
that in this agreement if the Senator would like to insert that in this 
agreement.
  Mr. FORD. I think the Senator needs to do that, and I hope he would.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I modify the request to include the right 
of the Senator from North Dakota to modify his amendment to show a 
different offset on tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, 
there will be no further votes this evening. However, Senators who 
intend to offer amendments must remain this evening to debate those 
amendments, and any rollcall votes ordered with respect to the 
amendments would occur beginning at 9:45 a.m., in a stacked sequence.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if we could have a time 
agreement with the Senator from Wisconsin, a 20-minute time agreement 
with 15 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin and 5 minutes for the 
managers.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you.


                           Amendment No. 2697

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the special 
research grants program that are not subject to a competitive approval 
                                process)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and 
     Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 2697.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available under 
     this Act for the program established under section 2(c) of 
     Public Law 89-106 (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)) may be used for a grant 
     that is not subject to a competitive process and a scientific 
     peer review evaluation by qualified scientists in the Federal 
     Government, colleges and universities, State agricultural 
     experiment stations, and the private sector.
       (b) Deficit Reduction.--Any funds made available under this 
     Act that are not expended because of subsection (a) shall 
     revert to the general fund of the Treasury for deficit 
     reduction.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I am introducing tonight 
will make a very simple change to the way in which some of USDA's 
research funds are distributed.
  Right at the beginning, let me just correct a statement by the senior 
Senator from Mississippi which I think 

[[Page S13831]]
was just a brief description. He suggested that our amendment would 
strike the special purpose grant within the Department. It does not do 
that at all. It does not change the amount of the grant. It changes the 
way in which the grants are given. It requires a competitive approach 
rather than what is, in effect, an earmark approach.
  So I want to be very clear throughout this debate that we are not 
striking the grants nor changing the way they would be given out.
  The amendment would require any funds appropriated under the Special 
Research Grants Program within the Cooperative State Research Education 
and Extension Service be subject now to scientific peer review by 
scientists outside of USDA and that all research grants be awarded 
under this program on a competitive basis.
  I am happy that the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is a 
cosponsor of the amendment as well.
  This particular program, the Special Research Grants Program, 
provides grants to State agricultural experiment stations, 1,890 
institutions and land grant colleges to carry out applied agricultural 
research in fulfillment of USDA's mission to encourage and support 
agricultural research within the federal land grants and other research 
institutions. In conjunction with the many other programs conducting 
agricultural research, the Special Grants Program has helped foster 
important agricultural research.
  As members of this Chamber may be aware, I have been working with 
bipartisan coalition of Senators to reduce the amount of so-called pork 
barrel spending in appropriations legislation. This amendment is 
intended to further that goal by addressing what I call hidden pork in 
this appropriations bill. The Special Research Grants Program while 
fairly straight forward on the surface, is actually not what it seems 
upon closer inspection.
  USDA's Special Research Grants Program receives a single 
appropriation each year to fund the many grants for agricultural 
research conducted by universities around the country. Last year, 
Congress provided $52 million for these special research grants. This 
year, the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided about $50.5 
million for special grants, of which some $9.8 million is to be focused 
on improved pest control research.
  The funding for this program is very straightforward with only four 
lines devoted to it in H.R. 1976.
  However, when I looked at the committee report accompanying this 
bill, I noticed an extensive list of projects that the Committee has 
recommended for funding under special research grants. I counted over 
90 in all for this upcoming fiscal year. Looking at last year's 
conference agreement, I found 121 such projects, most of which are 
identified by one or more states.
  Then I learned, that in fact, while these projects are not 
technically earmarks, in that they are not line-itemed in the actual 
appropriations legislation, USDA treats them exactly as if they were 
earmarks.
  So they are in the committee report. But they end up being treated 
like earmarks. Of the 121 projects recommended for funding last year, 
all but one grant was awarded and that single grant had its funds 
rescinded. Based on information I received from USDA, of those 120 
projects, not a single grant was awarded on a competitive basis and 
each grant was made in accordance with the Agricultural appropriations 
Subcommittee's recommendations.
  I am sure that are many Members in this Chamber who will tell me that 
committee reports of course are technically non-binding. That may be 
technically true, but if the agency administering the program considers 
those recommendations to be binding, they most surely are. Mr. 
President, the recommendations for projects to be funded under the 
Special Research Grants Program are most certainly earmarks. Every 
Member of this Chamber who has even had a project in his/her State 
recommended for funding under this program, or has asked for a project 
to be on that list of recommendations, knows that is the case.
  In fact, in the bill before us today, very little of the money 
proposed to be provided to universities will be awarded competitively 
and subject to scientific peer review. These institutions listed in the 
committee report simply submit their proposals and receive their funds 
with few questions asked by the agency.
  I do not want to pick on any particular State or university, but I 
think it is important that Members understand specifically what 
projects they are agreeing to fund under this program. Let me just list 
a few of the 90 some projects that are earmarked in the committee 
report: there are recommendations for eight separate research projects 
relating to aquaculture to be provided to six different universities 
for a total of $2.5 million for fiscal year 1996. Some of those 
recommendations are for projects that are described by the committee, 
others are for research generally on ``Aquaculture''. We have earmarks 
for: $300,000 for molluscan shellfish research at Oregon State 
University; $127,000 for multicropping strategies for aquaculture--
University of Hawaii; $370,000 for Chesapeake Bay aquaculture--
University of Maryland; $305,000 for seafood and aquaculture 
harvesting, processing, and marketing research--Mississippi State 
University; $308,000 for alternative marine and fresh water species 
research--Mississippi State University.

  And then there are the less descriptive earmarks: $592,000 
aquaculture, Mississippi State University; $330,000 aquaculture, 
Louisiana State University; $169,000 aquaculture, University of 
Illinois.
  All totaled $2.5 million earmarked for eight different research 
projects on aquaculture for six different research institutions.
  Should not it be enough for Congress to merely recommend that 
aquaculture, generally, be a research priority and leave the specific 
projects, funding amounts and research institutions up to the USDA and 
external peer-review panels.
  Mr. President, here is a sampling of some of the other projects that 
the Senate will be earmarking in this bill: $296,000 for jointed 
goatgrass research by the Washington State University; $303,000 for 
soybean cyst nematode research--University of Missouri; $162,000 for 
peach tree shortlife research at Clemson University.
  Some of the projects have vague descriptions such as ``forestry'' or 
``dried beans,'' so it is difficult to know what the designated 
institutions will be doing with the money nor is it clear why these are 
projects of national priority that they are specifically identified in 
the committee report.
  Mr. President, the question for my colleagues is not whether research 
on aquaculture, jointed goatgrass, or the soybean cyst nematode should 
be conducted. That is not at issue.
  At issue is whether Congress should be making these very technical 
decision for the agricultural sector and for the USDA.
  First, should Congress be defining for USDA research specialists the 
current research needs of agriculture down to the exact dollar and 
facility conducting the research?
  Second, should Congress determine which research projects have the 
greatest scientific or economic merit?
  Third, should Congress pick and choose among competing research 
institutions and decide, based on political circumstances, which 
Universities should receive the funding?
  Fourth, is it at the business of Congress to decide how much of 
taxpayer dollars each project should receive? Can Congress effectively 
determine for over 90 research projects what costs are reasonable and 
which ones are not?
  Mr. President, I believe that in a time of shrinking Federal dollars 
for vital agriculture research, the answer to all four of these 
questions has to be ``no.'' Congress is not equipped to make these 
decisions, and it should not be our job to make those decisions. In too 
many cases too many projects are being funded for political reasons 
rather than scientific reasons. An agricultural researcher's chance of 
getting Federal tax dollars should not depend on whether that 
researcher has a person on the Appropriations Committee.
  The amendment I am offering today ensures that research moneys under 
the Special Research Grants Program will be awarded to research 
institutions that submit proposals for projects that are consistent 
with the research needs of agriculture, that are competitive with 
respect to the cost of 

[[Page S13832]]
the project and the non-Federal matching funds, and have scientific or 
economic merit as determined by an external peer review panel.
  Congress under this can still recommend projects for funding, but 
those recommended projects will have to compete among a pool of other 
qualified research institutions. If they cannot pass the competitive 
test of merit and peer review, then the project should not and will not 
be funded.
  In 1994, the National Research Council stated that there remains 
considerable scope for expansion of the use of competitive grants at 
USDA and, equally important, the use of peer review.
  The advantages of this different more competitive approach are 
indisputable.
  First, competitive grants are responsive and flexible and can be 
adjusted to agricultural funding priorities consistent with national 
needs and the public interest.
  In 1993, before the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Research, the 
GAO reported that congressional earmarking of research dollars was 
identified as one of the factors inhibiting USDA from focusing research 
dollars on current research priorities.
  During that same hearing, USDA witnesses indicated specifically that 
congressional earmarking had prevented them from redirecting research 
dollars for the more current needs.
  Second, competition attracts new scientists, researchers and 
economists to an area of research typically reserved to a few select 
institutions with entree to Congress. That can only be good for 
research that attempts to solve otherwise unresolved problems.
  Third, competition in grant awards provides taxpayers and farmers 
with greater assurances that limited research dollars are being spent 
wisely and in the most cost-beneficial manner possible. It is that last 
point that I think is really critical.
  Over the last 25 years, USDA's research budget in terms of real 
dollars has actually declined. Of course, now in our efforts to balance 
the budget research funds will probably continue to take greater hits. 
The proposed budget for CSREES research in fiscal year 1996 is down $14 
million from fiscal year 1995. Compared to just 2 years ago, the 
funding for the Special Research Grants Program alone is down by $18 
million.
  Congress can no longer afford to operate the way we have for the last 
25 years. It is time to open up the Special Research Grants Program to 
competition and peer review. While this programming accounts for only 5 
percent of the budget, it accounts for about one-third of the 
nonformula research grants made by the agency, so it is pretty 
substantial. It is a critical component of this Nation's research 
agenda for agriculture.
  So to conclude, let me be clear. My amendment does not cut any 
funding for the Special Research Grants Program. It does not, as was 
stated earlier in the Chamber, strike any of that funding. It merely 
imposes a process whereby research grants will be directed towards the 
most relevant research in the most cost beneficial manner. I think we 
owe it to taxpayers and consumers and farmers and others in the area of 
agriculture to adopt this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time under the 
agreement as I may consume.
  The debate about special grants and research projects for agriculture 
is not a new debate. There have been differences of opinion about how 
much should be allocated for basic research, how much should be in 
applied research, whether the Agriculture Research Service Federal 
laboratories ought to do it all, whether State land-grant universities 
and the experiment stations attached to them should do some of the 
research and, if so, how much? What is the role of State government in 
all of this? Do they have an obligation to participate? Are matching 
funds to be required in every instance for research and the 
construction of research facilities?
  There are a lot of different issues involved in the agriculture 
research portion of this bill. We have tried to carefully review the 
requests this committee has received from Members of Congress, from 
outside groups, from others--the administration in its budget request.
  We have considered their suggestions to try to have a careful and 
thoughtful balance among all of these competing interests and to do it 
in a way that safeguards the interests of the taxpayers that their 
dollars not be wasted.
  There is no question that this bill is loyal to the responsibility of 
assuring that these dollars are invested to benefit American 
agriculture. They are not boondoggles. They are not pork barrel 
projects with no merit. As a matter of fact, many studies have 
documented the substantial public benefits which result from these 
investments in agriculture research. We need to maintain our 
technological advantage in American production agriculture to help 
ensure that our farmers can continue to operate profitably and protect 
the soil and water resources we have that are in many cases very 
fragile. And so we have a lot at stake in how these dollars are spent. 
We want them to be spent correctly.
  The debate really is in some instances not on whether the research 
ought to be done but who does it and who decides who does it. This 
argument about peer review is suggesting that those who are the self-
styled and self-anointed experts decide.
  As Members of the Congress we have the responsibility of ensuring the 
careful and frugal expenditure of public taxpayer dollars so we are 
directly accountable and answerable to the public for any appropriation 
of funds along these lines that we approve. I am not ready to delegate 
the responsibility that the people of my State of Mississippi have 
entrusted in me to come here and help ensure that our State's 
interests, our State agriculture interests are taken into account in 
the research decisions that are made.
  I am not going to delegate to some fancy group of scientists in some 
other State the authority to decide where the tax dollars that are paid 
by Mississippians are spent in agriculture research. I am not sure they 
will always come down on the side of the agriculture interests that we 
have in our region. So I wish to continue to play a role in it, and to 
do that we have to continue to exercise our responsibilities as Members 
of the Congress to determine how our tax dollars are spent.
  That is what this bill does. It gives our colleagues and this Senate, 
a voice in where these dollars go and for what they are spent. The 
argument for competitive peer-review grants versus special grants, in 
my opinion, focuses on who is going to make the decisions regarding the 
allocation of Federal funds among competing legitimate demands. There 
is competition between the experiment stations, land-grant 
institutions, and other institutions.
  It has been suggested that since each system has strengths and 
weaknesses, the arguments about the merits of the system should be cast 
in terms of the relative mix rather than their absolute merit. But we 
think we have done a good job.
  Mr. President, $707 million for basic and applied research in this 
bill will be conducted at Federal laboratories, $40.7 million will go 
to special grants, and $99.5 million will go to competitive grants 
through the National Research Initiative. We think special grants play 
an important role because they address special local and regional 
needs. The authority for these special grants is spelled out in the 
law, Public Law 86-106. This authority provides that grants may be 
awarded to State agriculture experiment stations, land-grant colleges, 
universities, and other qualified institutions for the purposes of 
facilitating or expanding ongoing State-Federal food agriculture 
research programs.
  Those who argue against these special research grants suggest that 
just because they are recommended by Members of Congress they have no 
merit or not as much as if they had been recommended by somebody else. 
I disagree with that. And so I think this is based on an erroneous 
assumption. The Senate ought to reject the amendment. I argue strongly 
for Senators to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  
[[Page S13833]]

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the 
Senator from Mississippi. I admire his leadership in the agriculture 
area.
  Let me use the brief time I have remaining to respond to a couple of 
points he has made about our amendment.
  First of all, I just do not see how it is possible for a committee, 
despite its tremendous efforts with the staff and resources of the 
Appropriations Committee, to make this kind of sophisticated analysis 
and competitive determination that is sufficient to make a fair 
determination of competition.
  The Senator says these are meritorious projects. I do not deny that. 
Certainly many of them are meritorious. How do we know? What is the 
criteria for evaluating whether or not the 120 out of 121 projects that 
were mentioned in the committee report last year were actually of merit 
to justify the taxpayers' dollars?
  And given the comments of the Senator from Mississippi, in 
particular, how he does not want this process left up to a fancy group 
of scientists, well, this is about a $50 million program. The National 
Research Initiative, Mr. President, is a $100 million program, and that 
is left up to a fancy group of scientists. We do have peer review when 
it comes to $100 million worth. Why not have that fancy group of 
scientists--actually that is what they are, people who know what they 
are talking about from an economic and agricultural point of view--why 
not have those people handling the other $50 million and make it a fair 
competition?
  What it comes down to, Mr. President, is what kind of competition are 
we going to have? The Senator from Mississippi fairly points out there 
is a competition of sorts for these earmarks. It is a political 
competition. It is a question of political muscle, who has got the most 
muscle to get a grant. I suggest that we need a different kind of 
competition, a competition based on merit. Many of us were elected and 
many of us particularly last year who came to this body were elected on 
the notion that we should run this Government like a business on the 
basis of merit, on the basis of quality, quality control. That is what 
this is all about, having some quality control in the midst of a very 
well intended series of efforts to improve agricultural research in 
this country. I thank the Chair and I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, has all time been used on the amendment 
under the agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we have other amendments that can 
be disposed of tonight, or argued.
  I notice the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Arkansas have a 
Market Promotion Program amendment which they intend to present. The 
Senator from North Dakota has an amendment which he can propose and 
describe, if he chooses, at this time or we can defer it to later.
  But we are going to proceed to try to meet the challenge of getting 
all these amendments argued tonight so we will know what we are going 
to vote on tomorrow. We appreciate the cooperation of the Senators.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2698

(Purpose: To provide that producers of a 1995 crop are not required to 
 repay advance deficiency payments made for the crop if the producers 
       have suffered a loss due to weather or related condition)

  Mr. CONRAD. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2698.

  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . REPAYMENT OF ADVANCE DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR 1995 
                   DISASTER LOSSES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (G) and (H) 
     of section 114(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 
     U.S.C. 1445j(a)(2)), if the producers on a farm received an 
     advance deficiency payment for the 1995 crop of a commodity 
     and suffered a loss in the production of the crop due to 
     weather or related condition, the producers shall not be 
     required to repay an amount of the payment that is equal to, 
     subject to subsection (b), the product obtained by 
     multiplying the applicable crop acreage base and the farm 
     program payment yield.
       (b) Limitations.--The amount of the payment that the 
     producers on a farm are not required to repay under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) not exceed $2,500; and
       (2) not be available for production on which crop insurance 
     coverage is available, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       (c) Funding.--Up to $35,000,000 that has been made 
     available to carry out the export enhancement program 
     established under section 301 of the Agriculture Trade Act of 
     1978 (7 U.S.C. 5651) during fiscal year 1996 may be used to 
     carry out this section.

  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the patience and the 
indulgence of the Chair as well.
  Mr. President, I will try to be brief. The amendment that I have sent 
to the desk would deal with a very serious problem that is developing 
around the country. I am sure it affects producers in the State of the 
Chair; I am certain it affects the producers in the States of the 
managers. It deals with the problem of producers suffering crop losses 
this year because of very serious planting problems that developed 
around the country.
  In many parts of the country we had excess moisture; in other parts 
of the country we had an extraordinary wave of heat that dropped the 
value of crops and in many cases destroyed crops for our producers.
  Unfortunately, producers lucky enough to plant a crop were often met 
with these difficult conditions, and in some cases producers were not 
able to get a crop at all. The result is that producers who had the 
expense of planting a crop received an advance deficiency payment.
  On wheat that amounted to 35 cents a bushel. Because of the crop 
situation in this country and around the world, prices then went up 
dramatically, which will require farmers to repay those advance 
deficiency payments, and in some cases they do not have a crop at all. 
In other words, farmers are being sent a large bill but have no crop 
from which to derive income to pay the bill back.
  Now, in previous years a disaster payment would have been available 
to meet this situation. But now we do not have a disaster payment. We 
do have crop insurance. And what my amendment would do is say to 
producers, to the extent your crop could not be covered by crop 
insurance, you would be forgiven the advance deficiency payment if you 
have had a crop failure. We would also attach an additional provision. 
We would provide that no farmer would get more than $2,500 in 
forgiveness of advance deficiency payments.
  Now, I understand $2,500 may sound like a lot to some people. To 
farmers who have very large expenses, it may sound like not much, but 
at least it would help offset the costs of putting in a crop, not 
getting any production, and then being expected to repay an advance 
deficiency payment when you have no income with which to pay it. And 
again I want to emphasize to my colleagues, we have provided that this 
is only available to the extent that crop insurance could not cover the 
crop affected.
  In other words, let us say that a farmer took out the 75 percent 
coverage under crop insurance; only the 25 percent that could not be 
covered under crop insurance would be eligible for this forgiveness of 
advance deficiency payment. So on no bushel, not one, would any farmer 
receive crop insurance and a forgiveness of an advance deficiency 
payment.
  In addition, if a farmer had chosen only to get 60 percent coverage 
and 75 percent coverage was available, he would only qualify as if he 
had the 75 percent coverage. Obviously we do not want to create a 
perverse incentive by saying to the guy that went out and purchased the 
75 percent coverage, ``You know, you were a fool to do that because the 
Government is going to come in here and at least forgive your 

[[Page S13834]]
advance deficiency payment on that part not covered by crop 
insurance.''
  So we have tried to target this in a way that makes sense. We worked 
with the Congressional Budget Office. They now tell us this would cost 
$35 million. We have offset that by reducing the amount available for 
the Export Enhancement Program next year by that $35 million. In other 
words, we say reduce by up to $35 million the amount available in the 
Export Enhancement Program for next year in order to fully pay for the 
forgiveness of advanced deficiencies for farmers who had disaster this 
year.
  Again, I think we have crafted this in a careful way. Let me just say 
that this year on the EEP program we had $800 million authorized. We 
know we are going to only use $400 million. We had $800 million 
authorized, and we will use something less than $400 million.
  I say to my colleagues, at least for the purposes of getting this to 
the conference committee, let us have a vehicle out there that allows 
us to forgive these advanced deficiencies to a total of $2,500 per 
farmer, and only on those bushels where they do not have crop insurance 
or could not have had crop insurance to offset some of the disaster we 
see around the country.
  Many parts of the country--I know in the South the cotton crop was 
adversely affected by unusual heat. It came at a critical time and as a 
result that crop was damaged. In my part of the country we had 
flooding, most unusual flooding. I know in the State of the Chair, that 
flooding and wet conditions were serious. As a result, we have a whole 
series of disease problems.
  With that, I would thank the chairman for his assistance this 
afternoon and this evening in trying to put something together.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, when the Senator from North Dakota 
brought this amendment to my attention and said that he would offer it, 
my immediate reaction was I favored it. I thought it certainly tried to 
do some of what we were doing yesterday, or endeavoring to do, when we 
offered the disaster assistance proposal to benefit those cotton 
farmers in the South who had suffered such terrible losses this year 
because of the infestation of army budworms, tobacco budworms, beet 
army worms.
  These damages were heightened and made much worse because of the 
serious weather conditions. The excessive heat in many areas of our 
State, and I think this is true of Alabama and other Southern States, 
made this disaster possible. We are told by the entomologists and the 
experts this is a weather-related disaster, but it is more commonly 
referred to as infestation of pests that have caused these damages. In 
my State alone, over $100 million in losses are going to be sustained, 
they say, by cotton producers alone.
  So I think this amendment may very well help some of those farmers. 
They were denied any extra help under the amendment that we had before 
the Senate on a rollcall vote. I think one of the reasons that 
amendment was defeated is because it was crop specific; it was targeted 
only to cotton producers. This amendment is not targeted to any 
specific kind of crop or farmer or region or State.
  Before we get to a point of voting on the amendment, I am going to 
try to find out from those who know whether it will apply and provide 
assistance to Mississippi cotton farmers. I may end up voting for the 
amendment. I hope I can support it. But at this time tonight, I am not 
able to recommend approval of the amendment, because of the questions 
about the offset and the scoring.
  If it is going to cost $35 million, where does the Department, or the 
ones making these estimates, think the benefits will go? Will they all 
go to the prairie, the North part of the farm belt, the Dakotas and 
that part of the country, and if so, how will it actually work? So 
there are questions that we still have to explore, and I hope by 
tomorrow when we get to a vote on this amendment, we will have those 
answers.
  I am certainly not going to criticize the Senator for bringing this 
amendment up. My heart is where his is, and that is with these farmers 
who have sustained these terrible damages. I regret that the crop 
insurance program that we have now is big on promise but short on 
delivery of benefits to help in the recovery from serious disasters. 
That is what we learned, I think, in Mississippi this year, that the 
new Catastrophic Crop Insurance Program is a disaster in itself.
  There has been a lot of hype. Farmers were told, ``Don't worry, 
you're automatically eligible for these benefits. For $50, you're 
signed up.'' It sounded too good to be true, and guess what? It is too 
good to be true, because the benefits they are getting do not nearly 
equal what others had been getting from ad hoc benefit assistance 
programs in the past. They were told, ``You are going to get about the 
same level of benefit that you would have under a disaster assistance 
program passed by Congress.'' It has not turned out that way. I 
sympathize with the farmers who have been misled and have not bought 
additional insurance to make up for what their losses could have been.
  Those are my reactions to the amendment, and comments. We will have 
an opportunity to vote on the amendment tomorrow.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I just say that this has been 
designed with all farmers in mind. This has not been designed to 
benefit just one region or one crop. We know that losses have been 
severe throughout farm country from different situations in different 
parts of the country. In our part of the country, in an unusual turn of 
events, we have had too much water. That is a rarity in North Dakota, I 
might say. We have a million acres not planted in the State of North 
Dakota. That is truly a rarity.
  But we know that there are different circumstances. In Indiana, they 
had excess heat at the time the crop was forming and, as a result, 
significant losses. I know Missouri has had the same problem North 
Dakota has, and terrible disease problems as a result of excess 
moisture. I know Mississippi has had problems as a result of weather 
conditions there.
  The one thing farmers cannot do much about are the vagaries of 
weather and price. This year, prices have shot up, and that is terrific 
for those farmers who have a crop, but if you do not have a crop, it 
means you are going to have to pay back your advance deficiency payment 
at the very time you do not have the crop to get the income to pay it 
back.
  I had a farmer call me the other day and he said, ``Senator Conrad, I 
have a bill coming due to pay back my advance deficiency payment, 
$8,000. I got no crop, and I got no money. I had the expense of 
planting. I had the expense of fertilizing, and I had the expense of 
putting it all in. Then we had disastrous flooding. So I've got no 
crop, and I have a bill coming due for another $8,000, and there's no 
way I can pay it. It is really not fair.''
  And just as the Senator from Mississippi described, those of us who 
are very wary of this notion of doing away with disaster programs, we 
are right because the crop insurance program does not make up for the 
lack of a disaster program. For many producers, that is going to be a 
disaster in and of itself.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2699

(Purpose: To provide that funds made available for the market promotion 
  program under this Act may be used to provide cost-share assistance 
only to small businesses or Capper-Volstead cooperatives and to cap the 
                       market promotion program)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
amendment will be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2699.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


[[Page S13835]]

       On page 65, line 18, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``:Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this Act to carry out the market promotion program 
     established under section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) may be used to provide cost-share 
     assistance only to organizations that are recognized as small 
     business concerns under section 3(a) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) or to associations described in the 
     first section of the Act entitled `An Act to authorize 
     association of producers of agricultural products', approved 
     February 22, 1922 (7 U.S.C. 291). Provided further, that such 
     funds may not be used to provide cost-share assistance to a 
     foreign eligible trade organization: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available under this Act may be used 
     to carry out the market promotion program established under 
     section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 
     5623) if the aggregate amount of funds and value of 
     commodities under the program exceeds $70,000,000''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate voted rather 
decisively--I believe it was 59 to 41--not to abolish the Market 
Promotion Program. Several Senators said to me they did not much like 
the program, but some industry in their State benefited from it or some 
agriculture cooperative in their State benefited from it.
  And so my objection to the Market Promotion Program is that it is for 
the very biggest corporations in America, and at a time when we are 
trying to cut Medicaid and welfare and everything else, to reward the 
biggest corporations in America with Federal largess is inconsistent 
and, I think, almost immoral.
  So Senator Bryan and I have crafted an amendment that we think will 
meet, certainly meets our objections, and we believe it will meet the 
concerns of Senators who feel obligated to vote for market promotion 
every year.
  There are four points to it. First, we eliminate the eligibility of 
foreign trading organizations. Right now, roughly $10 million of this 
money goes to foreign corporations. We eliminate them.
  Second, we convert it into something of a small business program, 
because we make small businesses eligible and small business will be 
determined by the Small Business Administration. Generally, these 
businesses range in the area of 500 employees and gross sales of $50 
million a year.
  If people want to put their money where their heart is, maybe I 
should say where their mouth is, here is an opportunity to do something 
for small business to help them export, because they need more help, 
where big corporations do not.
  Third, we make all the agricultural cooperatives in the country 
eligible. They are eligible now, and they stay eligible, and I know a 
lot of Members of the Senate voted for this because they have a 
cooperative. I have one in my State, Riceland Foods, who does a lot of 
exporting.
  So we make all cooperatives of all sizes eligible under the 
amendment.
  And fourth, we reduce the funding from $110 million to $70 million. 
You make it an attractive, palatable program that gives small 
businesses a chance to export. You take care of the agricultural 
interests because you allow the agricultural cooperatives to still 
apply for and be eligible for grants to help them export. You eliminate 
foreign corporations, which I think everybody will applaud and perhaps 
they will applaud louder for the reduction of $110 million to $70 
million than anything else, a savings of $40 million. We do not take 
the $40 million and allocate it someplace else. It can go on the 
deficit. You could not find a better place for it.
  Mr. President, those are all the remarks I care to make on it 
tonight. I will be glad to yield the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the hour is late, and 
this has been debated extensively during the course of the last day or 
two.
  Let me commend my colleague from Arkansas. He and I, it is clear I 
think to all Senators, if given a preference would like to eliminate 
the program.
  We have tried, he and I together, for the past several years--and 
prior to my arrival in this body, I am sure he was trying even then--
and it is $110 million in the appropriations bill this year. As he just 
pointed out, this is a carefully crafted compromise. We have preserved 
the right for small businesses, as defined under the Small Business 
Administration, to be eligible to participate in this program. We 
eliminate foreign companies from their eligibility. I think the more 
current number my colleague mentioned was $10 million. The information 
I have in the current year is that the program currently provides some 
$12 million. So we eliminate all foreign companies.
  Certainly, my colleagues would agree that the American taxpayer has 
no business in providing money for the advertising accounts of foreign 
companies. Certainly, we ought to be able to agree to that. As he 
pointed out, the various co-ops in the country, representing a broad 
diversity of products that are exported abroad, would continue to be 
eligible as they are under current law under this program, and we limit 
it to $70 million.
  We made some progress. The last time this issue came before us for a 
vote, my recollection is that we got 38 votes. This morning, we got 41 
votes. That is incremental progress, and I suppose we should be 
grateful for that. But in an effort to accommodate the concerns that a 
number of our colleagues that say, look, we are not enamored with the 
program, but it provides help to small businesses, it provides 
assistance to local co-ops involved in export promotion, this is the 
compromise that is offered in good faith. I hope my colleagues--
particularly those who have rejected efforts in the past to eliminate 
this program--will take a fresh look at this approach and say, look, we 
tried to strike a reasonable and responsive balance--not going as far 
as the Senator from Arkansas and I would like to go, but recognizing 
the concerns that a number of our colleagues have with respect to small 
businesses, and agricultural co-ops, and to eliminate the money that 
currently goes to foreign companies, some $12 million, and to try to at 
least begin to wean these programs from their current level of 
expenditure, which is $110 million, and to reduce that to $70 million.
  I urge my colleagues to reconsider their previous position and 
support this amendment, which is offered in the spirit of compromise.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion about the 
market promotion program today and yesterday. Last night, we were here 
on the floor for an hour--these three Senators--talking about this 
program and their amendment to actually do away with all funding for 
the program--cancel it, kill it. We had a full debate. We voted on a 
motion to table their amendment. The motion was agreed to by about 60 
to 40, about the same amount of the vote that was cast earlier this 
year when the Senate rejected, by a vote of 61 to 37, the same proposal 
on the bill--the rescission bill, the supplemental we had before the 
Senate. April 6 was the date of that vote.
  The point is this has already been fully discussed. I am not going to 
take a lot of time to argue against the amendment. I am going to make 
one point since this is a different approach to this issue.
  This amendment seeks to rewrite the program, in effect, not only to 
authorize the funding at a lower level, which I think is $70 million, 
but to change a number of the provisions of the bill with legislative 
language, in effect, describing the kinds of eligible entities who can 
apply for funds under the market promotion program--the size of the 
entities, character of the entities, description about ineligible 
applicants. My problem with that is not that these may not be good 
suggestions, but that the Senate is being asked to function as a 
legislative committee.
  Think about that, Mr. President. We are trying to function as a 
committee of the whole. They do that in the House when they go into 
session as a committee of the whole to take up amendments to 
legislation, and then the House actually reports the bill or approves 
the bill, and they have a vote on the legislation itself. But here in 
the Senate we do not have a committee of the whole. We have legislative 
committees that have that responsibility.
  I think it is a big mistake to have legislative proposals presented 
to the Senate for the first time, a case of first impression, here in 
the Senate Chamber and we are called upon to listen to a few minutes of 
debate or, as is the 

[[Page S13836]]
case tonight, with almost nobody here but those of us here who are 
managing the legislation, to listen to the argument and make a decision 
based on what is best for this program. Should this program be 
reauthorized? And how should it be managed? What would the level of 
funding be? These are decisions for the legislative committee to make. 
They are to look at the options. They are the experts.
  Senator Bumpers is not on the Agriculture Committee. Senator Bryan is 
not on the Agriculture Committee. Maybe they should be on the 
Agriculture Committee. Maybe they want to be on the Agriculture 
Committee and they are frustrated. They would like to have the 
opportunity to help write this authorization bill that we are going to 
be writing in the Agriculture Committee as a part of our reconciliation 
instruction. And I am told by those who are familiar with some of the 
proposals in the committee that there will be changes in this program 
recommended by the Agriculture Committee, and that there may be a 
reduction in the funding authorized by that committee. That is for them 
to decide.
  We should not be on an appropriations bill trying to legislate a new 
kind of program. So I have a serious problem with the procedure. I urge 
the Senate to reject this amendment. It is an amendment that we cannot 
accept, and I hope that the Senate will follow the decision that it 
made earlier on this bill, on a similar amendment offered by these 
distinguished Senators.
  Mr. President, as I understand the procedure, we need to get the yeas 
and nays ordered on the amendments that we have not been able to 
accept, so that votes will occur tomorrow.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to request the yeas and nays on those amendments that will 
require record votes, and they are: The Feingold amendment, the Conrad 
amendment, and the Bryan-Bumpers amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on those 
three amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, there 
are several amendments we have agreed to take and to recommend that 
they be included in this bill. We have a package, a managers package 
that will be presented to the Senate. We will do that tonight.
  Other than that package of amendments, which have been cleared on 
both sides, I know of no other amendments that are going to be offered, 
or intend to be offered, tonight. But just to be sure, I am going to 
yield the floor and await a call from the Cloakroom or someone coming 
to the floor to offer an amendment that we may not have heard about, 
that is described in the agreement and that would be eligible to be 
offered tonight. We expect to hear from anybody who intends to offer 
one that we have not indicated a willingness to accept.
  Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator will yield, I am sure my colleague and I 
have no further amendments. Has there been a time set, or a sequence 
for the votes to occur on the amendments offered this evening?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Under the agreement, there is time. It starts at 9:45 
a.m. on Wednesday. The sequence would be, I presume, the order in which 
the amendments were offered. The yeas and nays were granted. So the 
sequence would be the Feingold amendment, the Conrad amendment, and the 
Bryan-Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. That is certainly acceptable to me. Mr. President, I have 
a further question. If I might inquire of the chairman, is there any 
time allocated under the protocol that we are adopting for tomorrow to 
explain any of these amendments? I know that, previously, we have had 
arrangements where each side is given a couple of minutes. I simply 
inquire.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am advised 4 minutes equally divided 
has been made part of the agreement. That is the understanding.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COCHRAN. For the clarification of this situation, of course I 
will be happy to read this agreement.
  Let me read it, and if there are any problems, we will be told about 
it, I am sure, by Senators who have any questions.

                          ____________________