[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13911-S13919]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 1976.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1976) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related 
     agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Feingold-McCain amendment No. 2697, to prohibit the use of 
     appropriated funds for the special research grants program 
     that are not subject to a competitive approval process.
       Conrad amendment No. 2698, 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.
       Bumpers amendment No. 2699, to reduce funding to carry out 
     the market promotion program and to target assistance to 
     small companies.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the order, there are 4 minutes 
equally divided on the Feingold amendment, the first amendment to be 
voted on.
  In connection with the Conrad amendment, there has been a 
modification submitted. In connection with the Conrad amendment, I ask 
the following: I ask unanimous consent that following the first of the 
ordered votes, there be 6 minutes of debate for the Conrad amendment 
No. 2698, with 4 minutes under the control of Senator Conrad and 2 
minutes under the control of Senator Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2697

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending question 
is amendment No. 2697, offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Feingold]. As indicated, debate on this amendment is limited to 4 
minutes equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  
[[Page S 13912]]

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment does not cut a dime from 
the Special Research Grants Program. I want to make that absolutely 
clear. It just subjects the proposals for funding under this program to 
new scientific peer review and competition.
  Second, this amendment does not negate the committee's 
recommendations in the report. It just ensures that those 
recommendations, if they are funded, have to pass a competitive test to 
be sure they are merited.
  Third, this amendment replaces the political competition for these 
research dollars, which I think is inappropriate for an ever-shrinking 
agriculture research budget, and what it replaces it with is science-
based competition.
  Currently, the defining criteria for which institutions are awarded 
research grants I am afraid is which Members have the most political 
muscle to get their projects approved by the committee, and I think 
that is wrong. I think it is unfair to U.S. farmers for Members of the 
Senate and the House to be spendthrift with these limited research 
dollars which continue to shrink each year.
  Last night, my colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, said 
my amendment would delegate this authority to a ``fancy group of 
scientists on peer review panels.'' Under our peer review, $50 million 
is done by peer review, rather than $100 million, which is already done 
by peer review. Why the difference?
  I think it is appropriate to a have peer review panel. I think there 
still will be an opportunity for committee members to identify projects 
they believe in and to put them in the committee report, but they would 
have to go through, also, a peer review, and I am sure most of them 
would do well on this basis.
  The point here is, if my amendment is adopted, the projects would 
have to be approved on their merit. We would replace a political 
competition with a fair competition.
  Mr. President, I think it is irresponsible of Congress to continue 
funding these projects based on politics rather than merit. I would say 
that the scientists that are experts in their field are far better 
qualified to determine which projects are sound and which are not than 
are the Members of Congress.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this item which I think is not 
only reform in the agriculture area but a reform in our entire 
budgeting process. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me say in response, last night we 
debated this fully. We had the opportunity to talk about all the 
different kinds of agricultural research--applied research, basic 
research, research that is targeted to specific problems of a region or 
a State. There is a very carefully balanced mix of research dollars in 
this legislation. Some of it--most of it, as a matter of fact--is done 
by the Agricultural Research Service at Federal laboratories, by 
scientists employed by the Government. Some of it is done through a 
National Research Initiative which is a competitive, peer-review 
program as the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin said.
  Other dollars are allocated by formula, or under the supervision of 
the Department of Agriculture, which very closely monitors the use of 
all funds to determine that the research being done has merit and will 
benefit American agriculture. That is the important part of this.
  I am not so much concerned with how we divide these funds, but we 
think the bill before the Senate provides a proper balance. Members of 
Congress have had a say-so in how these dollars are allocated, and that 
is how it should be. They are accountable to the taxpayers. If you turn 
this all over to a group of scientists somewhere, they are going to 
have their own buddy system, in effect, and you may see States and 
regions that will get left out, and I think it might be my region that 
may get left out.
  You may have the large, more wealthy and well-entrenched hierarchy of 
academia in the Northeast and the Midwest dividing up all the money 
among themselves, and I am against that.
  The system we have now that is reflected in this bill and the 
appropriations that we have made here and recommended to the Senate, I 
think, are very thoughtful. They are well crafted to make sure we serve 
agriculture broadly.
  I hope the Senate will support our efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). All time has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to table the Feingold amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to lay on the table the amendment No. 2697, offered by the Senator from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold]. 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 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 Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
absent because of attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 447 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--34

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simon
     Smith
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatfield
     Pryor
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2697) was agreed 
to.
                           Amendment No. 2698

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment numbered 
2698 offered by the Senator from North Dakota, [Mr. Conrad].
  Debate on the amendment is limited to 6 minutes, 4 minutes under the 
control of the Senator from North Dakota and 2 minutes under the 
control of the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall on this Conrad 
amendment be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2698, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent to modify my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify in 
accordance with a previous order.
  Without objection, it is so ordered, and the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2698), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 82, line 15, strike ``$795,556,000'' and insert 
     ``$717,778,000''.
       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 in excess of 35 percent, the 
     producers shall not be required to repay the amount of the 
     payment on lost production 

[[Page S 13913]]
     that does not exceed the percent of production on which crop insurance 
     coverage was not available, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       (b) Limitations.--The payments not required to be repaid 
     under subsection (a) shall not exceed--
       (1) $2,500 for the producers on a farm; and
       (2) $35,000,000 for all producers.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment is to deal with what I think is clearly 
an unintended consequence. In many parts of the country this year we 
have crop failure, most of it weather related.
  Whether it is wheat in North Dakota or Kansas, whether it is cotton 
in Mississippi, or corn in Iowa and Illinois, we have a series of 
circumstances in which unusual crop losses have occurred. That has led 
to a perverse result.
  Farmers across the country are being presented with a bill to repay 
their advance deficiency payments and in many cases they have no crop 
with which to pay it back. What has happened is producers were paid an 
advance deficiency payment, prices rose because of these crop shortages 
and shortfalls and, as a result, farmers are expected to repay their 
advance deficiency payments. But those who have suffered a catastrophic 
loss have no crop with which to make these repayments.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order, please? The Senator 
deserves respect while we listen to this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will proceed.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is no giveaway program. A farmer must 
have a loss of at least 35 percent. It is only on that part of farmers' 
production that is not eligible for crop insurance that would be 
allowed any forgiveness. There is a $2,500 cap per farmer. On a 
national basis, there is a $35 million limit. And it is all paid for. 
It is paid for by reducing the authorization for the Export Enhancement 
Program from $795 million to $717 million.
  I just say to my colleagues, this year we had an $800 million 
authorization. We are going to spend less than $400 million of that. So 
I believe these funds are available for this purpose. It will allow 
farmers to get forgiveness on part of their advance deficiency payment 
in those circumstances where they have faced massive losses; in those 
circumstances where they have part of their crop that could not be 
covered by crop insurance. Where they could have gotten it covered by 
crop insurance, they are expected to have done so.
  It is paid for. It is fair. It will relieve suffering as a result of 
the transition from previous disaster programs to no disaster program. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota last night 
offered this amendment. We talked about it a good bit. I was determined 
to come to the floor and move to table it and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  But he modified the amendment. He sent a modification to the desk 
and, by so doing, this amendment applies nationwide to farmers who have 
had weather-related disasters. I am confident that there are some 
situations where there ought to be an opportunity for some disaster 
assistance.
  You may remember, I was on the floor arguing strongly for a cotton 
disaster program and the Senate did not approve it. I think one reason 
why they did not is that it was crop specific. This amendment does 
apply to all crops. It takes money from the Export Enhancement Program 
to do this. The payments are going to be capped at a $2,500 per farmer 
limit. It may even go less, because only $35 million is available 
nationwide. Depending upon the needs out there and the justifications 
for these payments to reimburse for advance deficiency payments where a 
farmer has not made a crop because of disaster, it may exceed $35 
million. If it does, there will be a proration of that available money 
so each disaster victim may get less than $2,500.
  I am going to vote for the amendment but I hope this has explained it 
to the extent Senators will know what they are voting on and understand 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think it is a bad amendment. I like 
farmers, but it is a little early for Christmas. We just did welfare 
yesterday, welfare reform, where we are dealing with low-income 
Americans. My view is, it is a great idea to give farmers $2,500. I 
think in my State they will understand if I vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I might just conclude, I would like to say this is 
completely paid for. It is paid for out of farm accounts to another 
farm account where there is, I think, a clear need across the country, 
where producers have suffered a catastrophic loss, and where there was 
not the availability of crop insurance to cover that loss. To the 
extent there is crop insurance available, no payment is available.
  Again, it is paid for completely out of other agricultural accounts.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Does the 
Senator yield time?
  Mr. CONRAD. I think all time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am opposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will need consent to address this 
issue.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds 
to address the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am opposed to the amendment. The Senator says the 
money is there. It came from the taxpayers. We are simply putting $35 
million more into another program that we should not be putting money 
into. The fact we might have put it into some agricultural bill and we 
are now shifting it to another one makes no difference. We are simply 
spending $35 million of the taxpayers' money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question now occurs 
on amendment No. 2698, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I 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 Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
absent because of attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 448 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Ford
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Leahy
     Lott
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Stevens
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--64

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatfield
     Pryor
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2698), as modified, was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 2699 offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
Bumpers]. There will be 4 minutes for debate equally divided prior to 
the vote.

[[Page S 13914]]



                    Amendment No. 2699, As Modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for permission to 
send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2699), as modified, is as follows:

       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 non-generic activities 
     of the market promotion program established under section 203 
     (e)(4) 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 non-Foreign entities 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 none 
     of the funds made available under this Act may be used to pay 
     the salaries of personnel who who 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/or commodities under the 
     program exceeds $70,000,000''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Leahy be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to have the attention of my 
colleagues because this will take just about 1 minute to explain to you 
what I have done on the Market Promotion Program.
  I do not believe that it is defensible for the U.S. Congress to be 
giving money out to the biggest corporations in the world. I have no 
quarrel with the thrust of the Market Promotion Program.
  So here is what I have done to that program. Four things: First, 
eliminate foreign corporations from eligibility; second, leave all the 
agricultural cooperatives as they are regardless of size eligible for 
the program; third, we cut the amount from $110 million to $70 million; 
and the coup de grace is make it a small-business program. Small 
businesses are the ones who have the most difficulty in exporting. It 
is not Gallo Wine. It is not Pillsbury. It is the small-business 
community.
  So I make it small business, other than agriculture cooperatives. I 
make it a small-business program as defined by the Small Business 
Administration. While that varies, it is essentially a company that 
does $50 million a year or has 500 or fewer employees.
  Here is a chance to make the program defensible. You can go home and 
talk to anybody you want to. Your farmers will love it because they 
stay eligible. Your small-business people love it because they will be 
eligible to export. Everybody else will love it because you are 
eliminating foreign corporations. And, finally, everybody will love it 
because we are cutting from $110 million to $70 million in the full 
knowledge that we are very likely to have to do some compromise with 
the House.
  I thank the President.
  I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just make this point. I have brought to the floor a chart 
showing the dollar value of agricultural exports by State. We are 
trying to aggressively go after market share with our agriculture 
commodities. We are trying to promote and expand the business that we 
are able to do in overseas markets, and we are making good progress. 
One of the reasons why we are is because of this program.
  Senator Bumpers and Senator Bryan have tried to kill this program. 
They tried it back on April 6 when we had the supplemental 
appropriations and rescissions bill on the floor. The Senate rejected 
their amendment. Yesterday, it rejected an effort. Here is another 
amendment. This is an effort to rewrite the whole program that is under 
the purview of the Agriculture Committee. We should not be asked to do 
that on the floor of the Senate. The Senators are not that familiar 
with the details of the program, the eligibility, the restrictions, and 
the safeguards that are written in there already. In addition, this 
amendment reduces the mandatory spending level for this program. That 
is a decision for the Agriculture Committee to make. They are under a 
reconciliation instruction. I understand the Agriculture Committee is 
considering this change.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from 
Washington [Mr. Gorton].
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment does not do what and exempt 
what the Senator from Arkansas says it does. He exempts co-ops from his 
prohibition, but he does not exempt the associations, which is the way 
most of your farmers will operate. There is not any apple grower in the 
State of Washington, I do not believe, who is not small enough to be a 
small business, but when he operates through an association, as he does 
and as they always do, he will not be exempted from the cuts that the 
Senator is imposing on him, nor will our asparagus growers, nor will 
any of your farmers who operate in that fashion.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The modification I just sent to the desk took care of 
the very thing that the Senator from Washington was complaining about.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this 
rollcall vote be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 of 
the Senator from Mississippi to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas. 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 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 Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
absent because of attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 449 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lott
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--62

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatfield
     Pryor
       
  So the motion was rejected.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2699) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

[[Page S 13915]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
                        rural tourism in alaska

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage my distinguished 
colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, in a colloquy 
concerning rural tourism in Alaska.
  There are precious few opportunities for economic development 
throughout Alaska's 210 rural villages and communities, reflected by 
the fact that unemployment rates remain as high as 80 percent. Coupled 
with the geographical separation of these remote villages from other 
population centers, many Alaskans are denied access to the basic goods 
and services that stimulate local economic development.
  The single bright spot on the horizon relates to growing interest in 
a rural Alaska tourism industry. In response, Alaska Village Initiative 
has, for several years, sought to offset the decline of traditional 
economic sectors with effective support to the rural tourism industry. 
I am told that approximately $300,000 would be required to establish 
and operate a Rural Tourism Development Center, RTDC, the next critical 
step to assisting these Native Alaskan villages along the road to self-
sufficiency.
  The RTDC will provide a range of technical assistance services to 
rural communities and individuals interested in developing tourism 
projects in Alaska. It will be a ``one-stop shop'' to assist 
entrepreneurs in developing their ideas from start to finish. It will 
also coordinate a wide variety of existing Government programs engaged 
in some aspect of rural tourism development.
  The Department of Agriculture funds rural enterprise grants to 
address just this sort of need nationwide. Since such a grant would 
appear to be highly justified, I ask the chairman of the subcommittee 
whether the necessary funds could be provided to establish and operate 
a Rural Tourism Development Center in Alaska?
  Mr. COCHRAN. As the Senator from Alaska noted, the subcommittee did 
address rural development grants, but was unaware of the problem in 
Alaska. I appreciate the Senator bringing this problem to my attention. 
I urge the Department to give equal consideration to an application to 
address this problem as those included in the committee report.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the aquaculture industry is of vital 
importance to the economy of west Alabama. In some west Alabama 
counties, for example, over 20 percent of the total population is 
employed directly in the production or processing of fish. The 
Southeastern Fish Cultural Laboratory in Marion, AL has played a major 
role in this process. It's my understanding that there are similar 
facilities in Arkansas and Mississippi.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is true that aquaculture is of great importance to 
the States of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. In Arkansas, the 
aquaculture industry is growing by leaps and bounds and the Stuttgart 
Aquaculture Center has been vital to that growth.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The same can be said about the National Warm Water 
Aquaculture Research Center in Stoneville, MS. The expansion of the 
aquaculture industry in Mississippi, and the Nation has been 
responsible for sustaining rural economies that were recently in dire 
situations.
  Mr. HEFLIN. We now have an annual trade deficit in fisheries products 
ranging from $4.5 to $7 billion. This trade imbalance is the largest of 
all agricultural commodities and ranks second only to petroleum among 
natural products. Our domestic aquaculture industry has the potential 
of turning this trade deficit into a trade surplus with only modest 
support and encouragement.
  Mr. BUMPERS. While it is true that overall, agriculture has a 
positive balance of trade, the aquaculture sector does not. At the 
present time, the United States does not have the production 
capabilities to meet domestic demand for fish and fish products and 
therefore we are placed in the position that we are forced to import to 
meet the domestic demand. The aquaculture industry has the opportunity 
to turn this situation around and we should facilitate this process.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Not only do we have the opportunity to turn our trade 
situation around relative to aquaculture, there is also a real human 
factor to be considered as well. Nearly 300,000 Americans are employed 
in aquaculture related work. The catfish industry alone accounts for 
121,000 domestic jobs and nearly $2.5 billion in income. If we are able 
to facilitate the growth of this industry, the economic impact 
potential is overwhelming.
  Mr. HEFLIN. As my colleagues from Mississippi and Arkansas are well 
aware, the U.S. aquaculture industry has grown more than 15 percent 
annually since 1980. As a result, aquaculture has emerged as a solid 
alternative agricultural opportunity and has allowed farmers to 
diversify. The research and extension infrastructure has been a major 
resource for aquaculture. Without this research it is doubtful that the 
aquaculture industry would have gotten off the ground.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I could not agree more with my distinguished colleague 
and Alabama. The research that has supported the growth of this 
industry has been essential.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Aquaculture is primed to take the next step forward and 
establish itself as an integral and vital form of agriculture. What 
aquaculture needs now is to be consolidated and coordinated under one 
department--the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Currently jurisdiction 
for aquaculture is spread out among the USDA, the Department of 
Interior, and the Department of Commerce. The Agriculture Research 
Service could truly assert itself in this regard if the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture is allowed to assume a leadership role in aquaculture.
  Mr. HEFLIN. In an effort to facilitate the continued growth of the 
aquaculture industry and provide the necessary resource tools, it is 
highly desirable that all relevant departments and agencies of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, including Agricultural Research Service, 
take steps necessary to support research in the field of aquaculture 
and particularly to exercise its authority to assist and help the 
industry and related fields of aquaculture including the cooperation 
with and/or the assumption of fish culture laboratories including the 
Southeastern Fish Culture Lab at Marion, AL.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree that the suggestion by Senator Heflin is 
desirable and should be carried out as long as it does not result in 
duplication of ongoing research activities at other research 
facilities.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I concur in what Senator Cochran has just said.
                      certified mediation programs

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note the chairman and ranking member of 
the subcommittee are on the floor. H.R. 1976 provides funding of 
$3,000,000 for grants to certified State mediation programs. Mediation 
is a proven effective tool in resolving disputes between the Department 
of Agriculture and America's farmers and ranchers. And as you know, 
mediation has been used for quite some time with regard to loans.
  However, current law [7 U.S.C. sections 5101 through 5106] also 
directs certified State mediation programs to offer mediation in other 
areas of dispute with the Department of Agriculture. These areas 
include wetlands determinations, compliance with farm programs, 
including conservation programs, agricultural credit, rural water loan 
programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, pesticides, and 
other issues as the Secretary of Agriculture considers appropriate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. The statute provides that 
certified State mediation programs are to be used for a wide variety of 
disputes with the Department of Agriculture. And as the law provides, 
in States with certified mediation programs, the Secretary of 
Agriculture is required to participate in ``good faith'' with certified 
State mediation programs.
  Mr. CONRAD. While the legislation is clear, there is a question 
regarding the Senate Committee's report language of H.R. 1976. The 
report language states: ``Grants will be solely for operation and 
administration of the State's agricultural loan mediation program.'' Is 
it the committee's intent that federal funding not be used for other 
issues covered by the certified State mediation program?

[[Page S 13916]]

  Mr. BUMPERS. No. It was not the committee's intent to limit the 
activities of the certified State mediation programs as currently 
allowed by statute.
  Mr. CONRAD. Therefore, it is my understanding that the report 
language should not be read to limit or exclude activities of the 
certified State mediation programs that are currently described in the 
statute. The grants shall be used by certified State mediation programs 
in a manner which is consistent with 7 U.S.C. sections 5101 through 
5106.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct. The report language should not 
be read to limit the activities of the certified State mediation 
programs which receive grants from the Federal Government.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senators for clarifying the report language 
with regard to certified State mediation programs.
                           tourism amendment

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last night an amendment I had proposed 
to H.R. 1976 was adopted unanimously by the Senate. I thank the 
managers of this bill, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for their assistance and 
cooperation in this matter. I also wish to thank the chairman and 
ranking member of the Agriculture Committee for their help and guidance 
on this very important rural development issue intended to clarify that 
tourist and other recreational-type businesses located in rural 
communities are eligible for loans under the Rural Business and 
Cooperative Development Service's [RBCDS] Business and Industry [B&I] 
Loan Guarantee Program, funded in this bill in the Rural Community 
Advancement Program.
  This is an issue that I first became aware of, and especially 
interested in, after a constituent approached me late last summer at 
the Rusk County listening session I held at Mount Senario College in 
Ladysmith, WI. The constituent owns a tourist lodge in northern 
Wisconsin and expressed his deep frustration at a problem Wisconsin 
tourist resort owners were having in attempting to obtain financing for 
rural development. Specifically, this constituent was interested in 
obtaining funding from the B&I Program to build an 18-hole golf course 
next to his lodge, but was told that recreational facilities were 
prohibited from receiving funding under the program. Concerned by this 
information, I decided to contact the Agency about the program. What I 
since learned is a clear illustration of why so many Americans are 
frustrated with the Federal Government.
  The B&I Program was established by the Rural Development Act of 1972 
with the aim of improving America's rural economy by creating, 
developing, or financing business, industry and employment in rural 
America. When the B&I Program was first established, no restrictions 
were placed on guaranteeing loans to tourist or other recreational-type 
businesses located in rural communities. However, on July 6, 1983, the 
Rural Development Administration revised its internal lending policy 
relative to the B&I Program and placed restrictions on the program's 
regulations by prohibiting such funding to tourist or recreation 
facilities. As a result, currently these loan guarantees are not made 
available to tourist or other recreational-type businesses.
  This policy does not make too much sense to me especially since 
tourism can definitely play a major role in the development of rural 
areas. In fact, nationally tourism is a $400 billion industry, and is a 
$5.6 billion industry in Wisconsin alone. After initially contacting 
the RBCDS in September of last year, I was advised that the Agency was 
currently undergoing a review of its loan guarantee policy. I urged the 
Agency to consider changing its internal lending policy to allow 
guaranteed business and industry assistance to be made to recreational-
type businesses located in rural areas. I want to make it clear that 
this policy is not the result of any restriction in the authorizing 
statutes, but rather an agency decision to restrict such funds.
  In fact, a General Accounting Office [GAO] report released in July 
1992 on the patterns of use in the B&I Program came to the same 
conclusion. It suggests that the B&I Program is underutilized, which is 
due in part to the Agency's current restrictions on using B&I funds for 
activities related to tourism. Furthermore, the GAO recommends revising 
the B&I program regulations to allow the selective use of loan 
guarantees for these activities.
  All indications are that the Agency seems to be leaning in favor of 
adopting these changes. I ask unanimous consent that two letters I have 
received from the RBCDS indicating they ``intend'' to remove these 
restrictions, one dated October 14, 1994 and the other dated July 14, 
1995, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                             Rural Development Administration,

                                 Washington, DC, October 14, 1994.
     Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     the availability of Rural Development Administration (RDA) 
     loan guarantees for tourist resorts located in rural 
     communities. RDA programs are administered at the local level 
     by the Farmers Home Administration.
       On July 6, 1983, the RDA Business and Industry (B&I) loan 
     guarantee program regulations were revised and restrictions 
     were placed on guaranteeing loans for tourist, recreation, 
     and amusement facilities. A recent study by the General 
     Accounting Office recommended that the agency revisit this 
     issue. As a result, RDA is considering developing regulations 
     that would allow loan guarantees in connection with certain 
     types of tourist and recreation enterprises.
       The purpose of the B&I program is to create jobs which will 
     improve the economic climate in rural communities and provide 
     lasting community benefits. You may be assured that your 
     comments in support of this purpose will be taken into 
     consideration.
       We appreciate your support for this program and hope that 
     you find this information helpful.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Wilbur T. Peer,
     Acting Administrator.
                                                                    ____

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                             Rural Development Administration,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     the proposed changes to the Business and Industry (B&I) loan 
     guarantee program. As you know, under the Department of 
     Agriculture reorganization, this program is administered by 
     the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service 
     (RBCDS). We appreciate learning of your concern and regret 
     the delay in responding to your inquiry.
       We appreciate your interest in our programs and are pleased 
     to have the opportunity to respond to your concerns. As you 
     note, tourist, recreation, and amusement facilities are 
     currently ineligible loan purposes under the B&I program. 
     However, a study by the General Accounting Office recommended 
     that the Agency revisit the issue of making loans for these 
     purposes and, as a result, RBCDS is developing regulations 
     that would allow loan guarantees in connection with certain 
     types of tourist and recreation enterprises.
       The proposed draft regulation would remove restrictions 
     placed on guaranteeing loans to hotels, motels, tourist 
     resorts, beds-and-breakfasts, convention centers and other 
     business involved in recreational services that meet certain 
     standards. However, the regulation will continue to prohibit 
     loan guarantees for golf courses, race tracks and other 
     gambling facilities.
       Currently, the regulations changes are being reviewed by 
     our Office of the General Counsel. Unfortunately, we cannot 
     predict with any certainty when the final regulations will be 
     published in the Federal Register.
       Again, we appreciate your continued interest in our 
     programs and hope that this information is helpful to you. If 
     we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to 
     contact us.
           Sincerely,

                                            Dayton J. Watkins,

                          Acting Administrator, Rural Business and
                                  Cooperative Development Service.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has been over 3 years since the GAO 
made its recommendations and over a year since I first contacted the 
RBCDS about this matter. However, rural America and, in particular, 
rural Wisconsin communities simply do not have the luxury to wait until 
Federal agencies finally decide to act.
  Mr. President, rural America is indeed at a crossroads in terms of 
converting from traditional resource-based economies which are becoming 
less economically viable, to other types of activities which also make 
a substantial contribution to better living in these areas. Tourism can 
certainly play a major role in improving the qualify of life in many 
rural communities and, in fact, rural tourism 

[[Page S 13917]]
should be recognized for what it truly is--a legitimate means to 
enhance economic development in, and the copmetitiveness of, rural 
America.
  Tourism can, and does, create jobs which help to improve the economic 
climate in rural communities and provide lasting community benefits. 
However, without economic assistance to help stimulate growth in rural 
development, any such successful transition to tourism may prove 
difficult. That is why the Government must act, and act in a timely 
fashion, to assist the economies of rural America.
  Mr. President, this matter is of importance to rural America. This 
amendment is not controversial, and will have no budgetary impact. It 
simply clarifies that tourist and other recreational-type businesses 
located in rural communities are eligible for loans under the B&I 
program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and move for 
its immediate consideration. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to address the Department of 
Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $63.1 billion in new budget 
authority [BA] and $45.6 billion in new outlays to fund most of the 
programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies.
  All of the funding in this bill is nondefense spending. This 
subcommittee received no allocation under the crime reduction trust 
fund.
  When outlays for prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $63.2 billion in BA 
and $52.8 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996.
  The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 602(b) allocation 
totals $63.2 billion in budget authority [BA] and $52.8 billion in 
outlays. Within this amount, $13.3 billion in BA and $13.6 billion in 
outlays is for discretionary spending.
  Mr. President, there are two issues that I would like to highlight. 
One deals with a scoring issue and reconciliation, and the other 
relates to disaster assistance.


                             scoring issue

  Mr. President, this bill includes mandatory savings to offset 
discretionary spending. I would caution the committee against including 
such savings in this bill.
  As you know, this is an historic year in which we have set forth a 
plan to balance the budget in 7 years. The budget resolution contained 
reconciliation instructions that would cut mandatory spending by more 
than $600 billion over the next 7 years.
  The authorizing committees already have a very difficult job to meet 
this target. These committees need the maximum flexibility to achieve 
these very significant deficit reduction savings.
  When mandatory savings are included in appropriations bills, it is 
generally to offset discretionary spending, rather than to achieve 
savings for deficit reduction.
  There are six provisions in this bill which result in mandatory 
savings totaling $521 million in BA and $381 million in outlays--some 
of which will be used in reconciliation.
  One example is the freeze on the food stamp standard deduction at the 
1995 level, which is also in the welfare reform bill now before the 
Senate. This provision saves $190 million in both BA and outlays in 
fiscal year 1996.
  Because welfare reform is likely to be included in reconciliation, 
this provision will count toward the reconciliation instruction of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee.
  We made a commitment this year to deficit reduction. We cannot 
accomplish this goal by double-counting savings in both appropriations 
and reconciliation bills.
  The House struck most of the provisions from its bill at the 
insistence of the leadership and on behalf of the authorizing committee 
because the House fully intends most of these savings to be included in 
the reconciliation bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee outlining the need for the 
authorizing committees and appropriations committees to respect the 
jurisdictional parameters on mandatory and discretionary spending be 
inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: During consideration of its 1996 
     Agriculture Appropriations bill, House Appropriators and 
     Authorizers went through a very difficult and exhausting 
     round of talks on the issue of mandatory and discretionary 
     spending authority. Accordingly, in an agreement worked out 
     by the House Leadership, the agriculture authorizing 
     committee was directed to stay within the bounds of mandatory 
     spending accounts and the agriculture appropriations 
     subcommittee within the parameters of discretionary spending 
     accounts.
       It is my understanding that you are faced with a similar 
     situation in several of the FY 96 appropriation bills coming 
     before the Senate. I would have to agree with you that in 
     addition to the leadership generated accord on this issue in 
     this body, it has indeed been a gentleman's agreement that 
     the appropriators do not steal from the authorizers and the 
     authorizers do not steal from the appropriators. At a time 
     when funds are diminishing rapidly in both the discretionary 
     and mandatory side of the agriculture equation, each 
     committee is being required to reform and drastically reduce 
     its funding. Thus, intrusions by the various committees into 
     accounts not under their purview are particularly harmful to 
     the budgetary and policy reform process.
       With this in mind, I was disappointed to learn that not 
     only has the Senate Appropriations Committee chosen to 
     disregard the will of the House on the issue of mandatory and 
     discretionary spending, they have done so to the tune of over 
     $800 million. This not only disregards sound fiscal and 
     budgetary policy, but it also threatens real reform of 
     agriculture programs and the efforts of this committee to 
     reform mandatory entitlement spending.
       I appreciate your tireless efforts to reduce the budget 
     deficit and bring sanity to the federal budget. I want to 
     pledge to you the full support of my committee and our 
     colleagues in the House who represent rural districts and 
     enlist your support in opposing any agriculture 
     appropriations bill that contains spending cuts by the 
     appropriations committees to mandatory programs.
       With best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pat Roberts,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.

                        AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE                        
  [Spending totals--House-passed bill (fiscal year 1996, in millions of 
                                dollars)]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Budget           
                                                     authority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed.....................................  .........     3,751
    H.R. 1976, as passed by the House..............     13,310     9,841
    Scorekeeping adjustment........................  .........  ........
                                                    --------------------
        Subtotal nondefense discretionary..........     13,310    13,592
                                                    ====================
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed.....................................        501     3,337
    H.R. 1976, as passed by the House..............     48,721    35,750
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                       
     Budget........................................                     
    Resolution assumptions.........................        620        90
                                                    --------------------
    Subtotal mandatory.............................     49,842    39,177
                                                    ====================
        Adjusted bill total........................     63,152    52,769
                                                    ====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Defense discretionary..........................  .........  ........
    Nondefense discretionary.......................     13,310    13,608
    Violent crime reduction trust fund.............  .........  ........
    Mandatory......................................     49,842    39,177
                                                    --------------------
        Total allocation...........................     63,152    52,785
                                                    ====================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate Subcommittee                     
 602(b) allocation:                                                     
    Defense discretionary..........................  .........  ........
    Nondefense discretionary.......................          0       -16
    Violent crime reduction trust fund.............  .........  ........
    Mandatory......................................  .........  ........
                                                    --------------------
        Total allocation...........................          0       -16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am concerned that the authorizing 
committees will not have full flexibility if appropriation bills 
continue to use mandatory savings to offset discretionary spending.
  I would hope that the authorizing and Appropriations Committee would 
resolve this issue in conference.


                             crop insurance

  The Senate-reported bill includes $41 million in an hoc disaster 
assistance for the 1995 crop of cotton that was adversely affected by 
insect damage.
  I would like to remind everyone that a $5 billion baseline adjustment 
was made last year to accommodate crop insurance reform, which was 
enacted into law.
  The crop insurance reform was supposed to replace the system of 
providing assistance through ad hoc disaster legislation.
  On August 25, 1994, I stated on the Senate floor that the crop 
insurance 

[[Page S 13918]]
reform will only work if Congress restrains itself from providing 
future ad hoc disaster assistance.
  I also said this will be difficult based on past experiences. What I 
have said has come true, and I believe that this is the beginning of 
the end of the newly reformed crop insurance program if we continue 
along the path that the Senate-reported bill has taken.
  The administration strongly objects to this provision in the bill 
stating that it is in direct conflict with one of the major tenets of 
last year's crop insurance reform, namely, that farmers would be 
discouraged from risk-management through crop insurance as long as 
Federal crop disaster payments were continually provided on an ad hoc 
basis.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate that I intend 
to vote for H.R.1976, the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 1995.
  I believe that H.R.1976 is a reasonable piece of legislation that 
establishes adequate funding levels for one of the most important 
segments of our Nation s economy, the American farm and farmer.
  While I intend to vote for this legislation, I remain very concerned 
by the actions of the Senate last night in approving the amendment 
offered by our colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, to direct the 
Secretary of Agriculture to take away from the Under Secretary for 
Natural Resources and Environment any responsibility in the areas he 
now administers relating to forest management.
  As many of my colleagues who opposed this amendment have noted, we 
here in the Senate often disagree vehemently on matters of policy. I 
have disagreed with my Republican colleagues in the Senate, and I have 
disagreed with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate. I have disagreed 
with both Democratic and Republican administrations. However, Mr. 
President, I am concerned that, in adopting the amendment by the 
Senator from Alaska, we have crossed the boundary of reasonable policy 
differences. I am afraid that we have strayed into an area where when 
we disagree with someone in the Administration, we can simply come to 
the floor and in essence fire that person. Mr. President, that is a 
dangerous and, I think, wrong precedent to be setting. Congress should 
let the executive branch direct the internal, personnel affairs of the 
executive branch. That is the system that the Constitution establishes 
and we should not try to undermine that by legislative fiat.
  Again, Mr. President, I will vote for the agriculture appropriations 
bill, however, it is my sincere hope that the conference committee will 
remove the language added by the Senator from Alaska s amendment. If 
not, I will have serious concerns about being able to support the 
conference report.
                 land grant funding for tribal colleges

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my strong support 
for the amendment offered by my colleague from New Mexico. This 
amendment would provide $8.15 million in funding for extension, 
education and capacity-building programs for the 29 tribal colleges in 
this country.
  The programs authorized under the Equity in Education Land-Grant Act 
of 1994 for fiscal year 1996 include a $4.6 million endowment payment 
for tribal colleges, which currently serve nearly 25,000 students. 
However, the law also authorized $1.45 million for curriculum 
strengthening grants, the $1.7 million for competitive capacity 
building grants, and the $5 million for extension programs--and these 
critical areas remain unfunded.
  Land grant status has created new opportunities for tribal colleges 
and for the people served by them. To date, billions of dollars in 
land-grant programs for rural America have produced tremendous 
educational and economic benefits, but Indian lands have received very 
little. This makes no sense. Large amounts of Indian agricultural land 
is idle or underdeveloped, largely due to a lack of adequate 
agricultural training on reservations. And since 75 percent of 54.5 
million acres of Indian land in this country is agricultural, a 
critical component of long-term economic self-sufficiency of tribes is 
helping people on reservations receive the training they need to use 
this land to its potential.
  Tribal colleges, such as Turtle Mountain Community College in 
Belcourt, ND, can provide this training. Even though they are located 
in areas where unemployment ranges from 45 to 86 percent, tribal 
college graduates are employed at rates of 74 to 85 percent--which 
means these graduates have contributed millions of dollars in Federal 
taxes and provided leadership in their communities.
  The need for agriculture training is extremely high on reservations, 
but it has not been met to date. And if tribes are to develop their 
natural resources and become more economically self-sufficient, we must 
meet that need. That is why I am pleased to support the Bingaman 
amendment, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am going to ask unanimous consent--we 
are probably not going to take any time for debate before the vote on 
final passage. I ask unanimous consent there be 10 minutes available 
for concluding remarks before the vote on final passage. I do not 
expect that to be used, but I put that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on 
this side.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent that this 
vote be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the remaining time yielded back?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield back such time as I may have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I 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 Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
absent because of attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 450 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--3

     Kyl
     McCain
     Roth

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatfield
     Pryor
       
  So the bill (H.R. 1976), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments to H.R. 1976 and request a conference with the House of 
Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the 

[[Page S 13919]]
two Houses thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Campbell) 
appointed Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
Kerrey, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment the good effort of 
all of the members of our committee and our staffs for the work they 
have done in preparing this bill, in getting it to the floor and 
handling the bill and answering questions, and my colleagues' dealing 
with amendments and all of the things that go into managing a bill on 
the floor of the Senate.
  We appreciate the cooperation of all Senators in getting the bill 
passed in a timely fashion.
  I especially want to single out for praise the staff members of this 
subcommittee: Rebecca Davies, Hunt Shipman, Jimmie Reynolds, Galen 
Fountain, and Carole Geagley. We thank them very much for their hard 
work and their expert assistance.

                          ____________________