[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15097-S15100]
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--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1976, the agriculture appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the 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, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 28, 1995.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to the Senate that 
we successfully concluded the conference with the House on September 28 
on the Agriculture appropriations bill. We worked out our differences. 
The other body has adopted the conference agreement, and it is now 
before the Senate. I urge the Senate to adopt it.
  This bill appropriates funds for the Department of Agriculture, the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Food and Drug 
Administration and related agencies for the fiscal year that began 
October 1.
  The funding level in the bill is $63.2 billion. This represents a 
reduction in spending of $5.8 billion from last year's level. It is 
less than the President's requested level of funding for these programs 
for the next year. It is actually a smaller amount than we agreed to 
when this bill was before the Senate. It is $631 million less than the 
total appropriated by the Senate-passed bill, but it is $615 million 
more than the level recommended in the House bill. I am pleased to 
report that the discretionary spending level is $13.3 billion in budget 
authority and $13.6 billion in outlays and that these amounts are 
within the subcommittee's discretionary spending allocations.
  There are things that can be said about the fact that we do not have 
enough funds to provide levels of support that we would like for many 
areas under the jurisdiction of this committee, but this is a time of 
constraint, it is a time when we are trying to reduce the overall costs 
of Government, insist upon new efficiencies in the operation of 
Government agencies, and this bill is, therefore, consistent with our 
overall budgetary goals and policy goals.
  The committee of conference on this bill considered 160 amendments in 
disagreement between the two Houses. It was our desire to complete 
conference on this bill before the start of the new fiscal year and we 
did that. I would like to thank all members of the conference committee 
for their support and cooperation in this effort. I believe this 
conference report reflects a mutually satisfactory resolution of the 
differences between the two Houses, and does so in a manner which 
reflects the funding requirements of the many programs and activities 
covered by the bill within the limited resources available.
  Approximately $39.8 billion, close to 63 percent of the total new 
budget authority provided by this bill, is for domestic food programs 
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Excluding the Food 
Stamp Program reserve, this represents an increase of $1.5 billion 
above the fiscal year 1995 level for these programs, which include food 
stamps; commodity assistance; the special Supplemental Food Program for 
Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; and the school lunch and breakfast 
programs.
  The $260 million increase above fiscal year 1995 for the Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC] Program, as recommended in both the House 
and Senate bills, remains the single largest discretionary program 
funding increase provided by this bill.
  The conference agreement accepts the House bill proposal to 
consolidate funding for commodity food assistance programs and provides 
$166 million for this purpose. It also provides the House recommended 
level of $65 million, $32 million above the fiscal year 1995 level, for 
the Food Donations Program on Indian reservations; and maintains the 
fiscal year 1995 level of $150 million, as proposed by the House, for 
the Elderly Feeding Program.
  The House bill recommended no fiscal year 1996 funding for a Food 
Stamp Program reserve. The Senate bill provided $1 billion for this 
purpose. The conferees have resolved this difference by agreeing to 
provide a $500 million Food Stamp Program reserve. Although this 
reserve has not been required for a period of years, this amount will 
assure that sufficient funds are available to cover benefits in the 
event of an economic downturn or unforeseen event resulting in 
increased program participation levels.
  With respect to rural development programs, the Senate-passed bill 
consolidated funding for seven rural development loan and grant 
programs, while the House bill consolidated funding for three 
programs--water and waste disposal grants and loans and solid waste 
management grants. The conferees have adopted the House bill position 
and have provided a total of $487.9 million for this consolidated 
account. The conferees also have provided $2.9 billion in total rural 
housing loan authorizations, $415 million more than the House and $42 
million less than the Senate bill levels.
  I am also pleased to report that the Senate bill's higher levels for 
farm operating and ownership loans were retained by the conferees. Loan 
authorizations totaling $2.45 billion are provided for these important 
farmer assistance programs.
  For discretionary conservation programs, the conferees have provided 
total funding of $857.7 million. The conference agreement also retains 
the Senate recommendation providing for the enrollment of an additional 
100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program, the same as the fiscal 
year 1995 level.
  In addition, this conference agreement provides $53.6 million for the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It retains a number of Senate 
bill provisions, including the provision regarding poultry labeling 
regulations issued by the USDA, a provision which limits eligibility 
for the market promotion program, and a provision prohibiting the use 
of FDA funds for the Board of Tea Exports.

[[Page S 15098]]

  Mr. President, I realize that sacrifices are required of everyone if 
we are to reduce the Federal budget deficit. However, I regret that the 
resources required to be allocated in this bill to maintain essential 
food assistance benefits continues to reduce the remaining portion of 
the bill allocated to those programs so essential to agriculture and to 
rural America. These are beneficial programs. They help America's 
farmers to be competitive both here and abroad; they provide essential 
services to people in rural towns and communities across this Nation; 
they work to conserve and protect our Nation's natural resources.
  Mr. President, Senate approval of this conference agreement is the 
remaining step required to send this appropriations bill to the 
President for signature into law.
  I am proud of the work that the committee has done, both in 
developing the bill to present to the Senate and in conference. I hope 
the Senate will approve it.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi for his generous comments and his leadership for making 
possible the presentation of the conference agreement for the fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, the 
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. This has been a 
very difficult year, but we have been able to reach an agreement with 
the House which has resulted in this conference report and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  This conference report contains $63.2 billion in new budget authority 
which is $630.5 million below the bill passed by the Senate earlier 
this year and nearly $5.8 billion below the amount contained in the 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. I must point out to my 
colleagues that these reductions have not been taken lightly nor will 
they be lightly received. For far too long, this subcommittee has seen 
a dwindling of resources available to us to make the increasingly 
difficult choices of budget priorities. The programs under the 
jurisdiction of this subcommittee are often overlooked or misunderstood 
in their importance to our Nation as a whole and to the specific groups 
these programs are designed to serve. They do deserve our attention and 
they deserve our support. I only wish the allocation provided this 
subcommittee would have allowed us to do more.
  The programs funded by this bill are programs that touch upon the 
lives of nearly every American. These programs range from school lunch 
and nutrition education for our Nation's children to promoting and 
enriching the research capacity on the land grant campuses across the 
country. These programs will enhance soil and water conservation, as 
well as promote the export of U.S. products, and provide humanitarian 
assistance in areas of deprivation. Included in this bill are programs 
designed to provide housing to the poor, a better business climate for 
companies seeking to locate in rural areas, and better habitat for our 
Nation's wildlife. The funding included in this bill will protect the 
capacity of our Nation to produce an abundant and safe food supply for 
our people an many around the world.
  This conference report contains more than $700 million for the 
Agricultural Research Service and $850 million for activities of the 
Cooperative State Research and Extension Services. This combined 
investment of more than $1.5 billion in research and extension will be 
an important contribution to improve the quality and efficiencies of 
our Nation's productive capacity and make us more competitive in world 
markets.
  Also provided is nearly $545 million for the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service. This amount is slightly above the amount provided 
by the House, but somewhat below the Senate figure. The Government's 
role in food safety is at a critical juncture as we move away from the 
organoleptic method toward a more effective microbiological inspection 
system based on sound science. The importance of the work of this 
agency must not be underestimated and I am concerned that higher levels 
of funding may be necessary during the transition of moving toward the 
updated system. Everyone has a stake in this challenge, including the 
producer, the processor, the marketer, and ultimately the consumer 
whose reliance on the integrity of this agency's mission must be 
without question.
  In the area of conservation, this conference report provides $630 
million for the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Conservation 
Operation account to provide technical assistance and guidance to 
improve water quality, check soil erosion, and better protect our 
natural resource base. One hundred million dollars is provided to 
provide watershed and flood prevention services and $77 million is 
included to enroll an additional 100,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve 
Program.

  One of the areas in which the Senate was at strong disagreement with 
the House was that of rural development. To a large extent, the 
conference agreement more closely resembles the more acceptable funding 
levels contained in the Senate provisions. The section 502 rural 
housing program level was maintained at the Senate figure of $2.7 
billion, an increase of $450 million above the House level. The water 
and wastewater programs provided through the Rural Utilities Assistance 
Program are included with nearly $500 million in new budget authority, 
an amount more than $50 million higher than that proposed by the House. 
Also, additional funds may be available for these programs if carryover 
funds in the WIC Program exceed $100 million.
  I do not know if carryover funds in WIC will exceed this amount. WIC 
is an extremely important program as well, and I hope that the WIC 
Program will be able to expand in a manner to utilize all available 
funds. However, if the carryover in this account continues to grow as 
it has in the past, I can think of no better use of these funds than to 
provide safe water and sanitary conditions to households which, in many 
cases, may be WIC recipient households as well.
  In the area of nutrition, nearly $8 million in child nutrition 
programs is provided, $27.6 billion for the Food Stamp Program, and 
more than $3.7 billion for the WIC Program, an increase of $260 million 
above last year's level. The amount included in the conference report 
for domestic food programs exceeds that of all other programs combined, 
as it has in recent years. The conference report provides $39.8 billion 
in domestic food programs which is 63 percent of the total amount 
provided in this Act.
  The conference report also provides $125 million for the Foreign 
Agricultural Service to promote the export of U.S. commodities 
including an increase for the foreign market development program. The 
market promotion program is included at the fiscal year 1995 level but 
with an amendment similar to the Senate provision prohibiting the 
allocation of Federal funds to large companies for branded advertising. 
During these times of fiscal constraint when funding is being reduced 
for rural housing, water and sewer programs, and many other services 
crucial for human welfare, it is incredible that we have been providing 
Federal grants to companies--many of which have advertising budgets of 
their own totalling millions of dollars--to advertise their products. 
The conference agreement contains a limitation on this program that is 
a first step in bringing some sanity to this program and helping 
restore taxpayer confidence in our ability to manage their hard earned 
tax dollars.
  Mr. President, there are many other important items contained in this 
conference report that I will not take time to mention here. As I 
stated earlier, the programs in this act are vitally important to all 
Americans and I only wish our allocation had been more generous in 
order for us to provide greater assistance in areas that will otherwise 
suffer this coming year. I understand there has been some concern that 
savings were achieved from limitations on mandatory programs and, as 
former chairman of an authorizing committee, I empathize with those 
that may feel we should not have realized those savings. I can only 
respond by restating that this has been a most difficult year and 
savings from mandatory programs were only achieved when absolutely 
necessary and in areas where it was understood to cause the least harm. 
I honestly hope that the allocation process for fiscal year 1997 will 
not result in 

[[Page S 15099]]
the same pressures on our subcommittee as we have seen again this year. 
I must also honestly admit that I do not hold out much hope that such 
improvement is likely.
  In closing, I want to say again what a pleasure it has been to work 
with my good friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. He 
has, once again, proved that he has an excellent knowledge of the 
programs held under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and that he 
is extremely fair and thoughtful in the deliberations culminating in 
the presentation of this conference report.
  Mr. President, let me say that this has been a very difficult, 
difficult year for all of us in trying to start honestly toward a 
balanced budget by the year 2002. It has been especially difficult for 
some of us who are totally committed to the viability of America's 
agricultural system.
  I had been out of town and I read a 2-week old Newsweek magazine last 
night. The article referred to the anger of the middle class. The 
article contained interviews of several people who expressed their 
views about Congress, with the usual statements: ``Those clowns will 
never balance the budget.'' ``The place is totally controlled by 
lobbyists.'' ``I've lost faith in our country and our Government.''
  In all honesty, I relate and understand their anger and hostility. 
But I also want to say that I wish I could visit personally with each 
one of those people who made those remarks about what is going on here.
  I would like to point out to them that this budget in this 
agriculture bill is almost $6 billion--$6 billion--less than last year.
  The presiding Senator at this very moment, the chairman of the 
Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, has just gone through the same 
kind of cuts in his subcommittee, and they are painful and they 
alienate still more people who lose some of their benefits, because it 
has been a draconian time here.
  So I want to just say this bill, in my opinion, protects the things 
that really must be protected. It cuts where we feel we can afford to 
cut and, at the same time, provide, as best we can, for a viable 
agricultural economy in the country.
  Mr. President, let me close by saying, despite the trauma of trying 
to craft a bill with these terrible, really, big cuts, it has been made 
much easier by working with my good friend, Senator Cochran, from 
Mississippi, whose knowledge of agricultural programs and, 
particularly, those programs in the agricultural appropriations bill, 
is legendary. He has been as careful as he could be about the interests 
of various Senators, but he has also been very realistic with them in 
telling them the so-called good old days are gone. You cannot 
accommodate all the requests here, all the interests. And considering 
the amount of money we had to spend, he has done an absolutely superb 
job.
  Let me make one other comment because it goes without saying that I 
have always been unalterably opposed to the idea of term limitations. I 
listened to some of that debate last night. I felt like I was virtually 
the only one in the country that is opposed to term limits. The 
American people may favor term limits, but when you do, you lose the 
institutional memory, the unbelievable knowledge of people like Senator 
Cochran in areas like this. When you lose that, and the integrity and 
dedication of people like that, you lose something that takes a long 
time to rebuild.
  So it was an honor for me, as ranking member on this committee, to 
work with him. I think we have come up with a bill that does everything 
we could possibly do within the limits and the amount of money we had.
  I strongly recommend passage of this bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for the kind and 
generous remarks of my good friend and colleague from Arkansas. His 
support, assistance, and leadership in developing this bill and help in 
managing it on the floor of the Senate were greatly appreciated and 
very important to the final work product that was turned out by the 
Senate.
  I hope that Senators will support the conference report, as 
recommended by both managers and both sides of the aisle. When this 
bill passed the Senate, it passed on a record vote, with only three 
dissenting votes. I think that is a strong statement of support that 
existed for the passage of our bill, and I am glad to say that much of 
the compromise that was necessary reflected many of the recommendations 
the Senate made during the conference. But it was a give and take and a 
very fair conference in every sense of the word.
  I would like to make one further clarification with respect to the 
conference agreement on this bill. The statement of managers 
accompanying the conference report inadvertently fails to explain the 
conference committee's agreement regarding Agricultural Research 
Service laboratories proposed for closure in the President's fiscal 
year 1996 budget. The conference agreement provides funding to maintain 
the El Reno, OK; Sidney, MT; Clemson, SC, and Miami, FL, ARS 
laboratories. The other locations not transferred to non-Federal 
ownership, as proposed by both the House and Senate, are to be 
maintained as ARS worksites. The Houma facility is to be used as a work 
site of the ARS Center in New Orleans, LA.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I was wondering if my colleague would take a moment to 
reiterate and confirm what is my understanding of the conference 
committee's actions concerning the Department of Agriculture's fresh 
poultry labeling rule. I understand that, by including the Senate-
passed bill provision in the conference report, the conferees intended 
to prevent the final rule which was promulgated on August 25, 1995, 
from taking effect, and also to prevent USDA from using any funds to 
implement or enforce this regulation as promulgated. Is that my 
colleague's understanding as well?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Arkansas 
raising this question. I would say to my friend that this is my 
understanding of the effect of the conference committee's action as 
well. As you may recall, the regulation as promulgated did not reflect 
the Department's findings in scientific research. It included a 
misleading label for those products not qualifying to be labeled 
``fresh'' or ``frozen.'' I would also remind my colleague that the 
Department's final regulation did not include any temperature variance 
for products. Therefore, the language of this act makes it clear that 
the rule as published on August 25 shall never go into effect unless 
the conditions of this statutory language is met. The burden is now 
upon USDA to submit a regulation to the appropriate committees for 
approval which resolves these critical issues in a satisfactory manner. 
I thank my colleague for his inquiry.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would be grateful if Senator Brown would, for a 
moment, engage in a colloquy with me to discuss the intent of his 
amendment on bypass flows. This issue is very complicated. I would like 
to assure that we are clear on what facilities would be affected. 
Additionally, the Department of Agriculture is concerned that the 
amendment does not allow, among other things, its Office of General 
Counsel to defend litigation concerning administrative decisions of the 
USDA officials.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss further the intent 
of my amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill.
  The provision I am speaking of is section 732 of the general 
provisions title in the conference report dealing with a water issue. 
After meetings with Secretary Glickman and his staff, we have come to 
an understanding regarding what this provision does. This amendment 
does not apply to new facilities. Further, the amendment would not 
apply to authorizations to expand facilities or their operations. This 
amendment only applies where the operators of facilities are applying 
for authorizations to continue operating in the same manner as they 
have been operating.
  This amendment neither addresses the ability of the Department of 
Agriculture to assert administrative or judicial claims to water or 
water rights, nor defending proper administrative decisions of USDA 
officials.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I appreciate the clarification.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to support the conference report 
accompanying the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  The conference report provides $62.6 billion in new budget authority 
[BA] 

[[Page S 15100]]
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.
  When outlays for prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are 
taken into account, the final bill totals $63.2 billion in BA and $52.7 
billion in outlays for fiscal year 1996.
  The subcommittee is at its 602(b) allocation for both budget 
authority and outlays.
  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.
  For discretionary spending in the conference report, the bill is 
essentially at the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation for both BA and 
outlays.
  The bill is $1.6 billion in BA and $1.1 billion in outlays below the 
President's budget request for these programs. It is essentially at the 
House-passed bill level in BA and $26.5 million below the House bill in 
outlays. The conference report is $405.7 million BA and $759.4 million 
in outlays below the 1995 level.
  The conference report includes mandatory savings of $389 million in 
BA and $249 million in outlays which are used to offset discretionary 
spending. Some of the savings duplicate those in the reconciliation 
bill.
  The Congress is currently working on an omnibus budget reconciliation 
bill that seeks to achieve a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002. 
Congress must work to minimize the double counting of mandatory savings 
in the appropriations bills and the reconciliation bill in order to 
reach a balanced Federal budget.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE--SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT      
               [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, conference report....................     13,310      9,814
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary.............     13,310     13,566
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................        501      3,337
  H.R. 1976, conference report....................     49,277     35,791
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget:                                                              
    Resolution assumptions........................         64         49
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal mandatory..........................     49,842     39,177
                                                   =====================
      Adjusted bill total.........................     63,152     52,743
                                                   =====================
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........................  .........        -42
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
    Total allocation..............................  .........        -42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to express my great disappointment 
with a key provision of the conference report for H.R. 1976, the fiscal 
year 1996 Agricultural appropriations bill. I deeply regret that 
important funding for the tribally controlled community colleges in the 
United States was largely cut from the bill.
  During the Senate debate on H.R. 1976, I was successful in offering 
an amendment which provided $4 million in extension and academic 
improvement funds to our nations tribal colleges. I was greatly 
assisted by Senators Bingaman, Conrad, Domenici, and Inouye all joined 
me in this worthy effort.
  While a relatively small amount compared to the over $1 billion that 
will be spent at other universities throughout the United States, this 
$4 million appropriation would have been a great boost to our long-
neglected tribal colleges. They receive virtually no State or local 
funding, and are in desperate need of Federal assistance.
  This conference report represents an unhealthy dose of the status quo 
in this regard. There are hundreds of millions of dollars for large 
State universities, and a few token dollars metered out to Indian 
colleges and universities.
  Of course, the students educated at these tribal colleges, over 
20,000 nationwide, are striving to build a future for themselves after 
growing up in the poorest communities in America. The level of poverty 
that faces native Americans would astound most of their fellow 
citizens.
  The funds that I and a group of my concerned colleagues were seeking 
for tribal colleges were fully authorized in 1994 by legislation which 
gave partial ``land grant status to tribal colleges and institutions. 
This designation was long overdue, for tribal colleges reside in 
largely rural areas, and Indian reservations are comprised of tens of 
millions of acres of agricultural land. Agricultural programs at tribal 
colleges would be a solid investment in Indian students and their 
communities.
  For over a century the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided 
large amounts of funding to State land grant colleges and historically 
black colleges. These funds support agricultural research, education, 
and extension services. It is time we recognized the vital mission of 
America's tribal colleges as well. This conference report was a prime 
opportunity to do so, yet we have faltered again.
  Deleting the $2.55 million that the Senate version of H.R. 1976 
contained for extension programs at tribal colleges was unfair and 
unnecessary. It is yet another example of how little attention or 
concern is often given to the needs of native Americans by this body. 
At a time when several universities in the United States will receive 
over $20 million each from the Department of Agriculture--and others 
have received as much as $40 million in a single year--the managers of 
this bill cut the extremely modest amount provided to tribal colleges.
  Let me make it quite clear that there was no reason for these funds 
to be revoked, except perhaps for the Senate to maintain its record of 
consistent inattentiveness to the plight of many native Americans. I 
oppose the conference report for this unnecessary and harmful deletion 
of funds. I will renew my efforts to assist our Nation's tribal 
colleges and Indian students at each appropriate opportunity in the 
upcoming year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The conference report 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________