[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 127 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10580-S10583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3662) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the managers would agree, I ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the committee amendment to offer an 
amendment at this point. And perhaps it could be dealt with later, if 
the managers of the bill would agree. It is an amendment that addresses 
concerns confronting cattle producers in the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5351

              (Purpose: To promote the livestock industry)

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

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5351.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President this amendment attempts to address many 
of the concerns confronting cattle producers in the United States 
today. The issues of packer concentration, lack of price discovery, 
retail price spreads and low prices have been foremost on the minds of 
cattle producers and consumers throughout South Dakota and the Nation.
  To say these are concerns of my fellow South Dakotans is a gross 
understatement. Thousands of South Dakotans have written, called, or 
visited with me on this issue. This is an issue that strikes at the 
heart of their ability to run their farms and businesses and provide 
for their families. The time has come for Congress to take action.
  For the past 2 years, I have been pressing the Clinton administration 
to address meatpacker concentration and utilize existing antitrust laws 
to make sure that cattle are sold in an open and competitive market. 
Though the administration has taken some steps over the past several 
months, I believe these measures are marginal at best. Stronger action 
is needed.
  What is of great concern to producers is the fact that while cattle 
prices have been at or near record lows, retail prices have not shown 
any significant drop. In fact, just the opposite is happening.
  In 1995, at Eich's Meat Market, in Salem, SD, the price of a choice 
yield grade 2 hind quarter was $1.65 per pound--that is the highest 
price paid at this locker since it was opened. This past summer it was 
$1.60 per pound. The same hind quarter was selling for $1.57 per pound 
in 1993. In contrast, in 1993 live cattle prices were $80 or higher. 
Yet, in 1995, live prices have been as low as $51.50.

  This represents a combination punch to South Dakota ranchers--as 
producers, they are getting fewer dollars for their livestock; yet, as 
consumers, ranchers--armed with fewer dollars--are forced to pay more 
both in terms of real dollars and as a portion of their budget to put 
their own product on the dinner table.
  The influence of packer concentration on the market cannot be 
overlooked or dismissed. Fifteen years ago, the top four packers held 
about 40 percent of the market. Today market share is over 85 percent.
  Economic studies have shown that this kind of market concentration 
provides these firms with the kind of power needed to control prices.
  At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing that I chaired on this 
subject, it was made abundantly clear that all too often cattle 
producers do not have free, open, or competitive markets in which to 
sell their cattle. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, [GIPSA] is charged with insuring a free and open 
marketplace. GIPSA must be more vigilant in assuring this.
  Only through enforcement of existing antitrust will we be able to 
ensure the long-term economic viability of the U.S. cattle industry. 
South Dakota ranchers agree.
  I have held two Senate hearings on this subject over the past year. I 
also have introduced several bills to address concerns that cattle 
producers have told me must be addressed. Other Senators have offered 
their own proposals. Some are controversial. What I have done with this 
amendment is incorporate those measures that I believe we can pass this 
year. Our cattlemen need relief now, not a promise of future action at 
some point next year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my amendment 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. I do not believe this is a partisan issue. Nor should 
this amendment be treated as one. Both Republicans and Democrats from 
cattle-producing States I expect will embrace this amendment. Some may 
say tougher action is needed. They're right. The goal here is to do 
what we can now. This amendment I believe is a strong step in the right 
direct.
  Again, while my amendment does not include everything I think is 
needed I believe it is a measure that can pass

[[Page S10581]]

and provide real teeth to bring real results to the problems that our 
cattle producers face.
  We need to keep in mind that old saying ``If it ain't broke, don't 
fix it.'' Well the U.S. cattle industry is broke and it needs fixing, 
now.
  I would like to commend the South Dakota secretary of agriculture, 
Dean Anderson, for being a national leader on this issue. Secretary 
Anderson was responsible for bringing this matter before the National 
Association of State Departments of Agriculture. South Dakota livestock 
producers are proud of Secretary Anderson's efforts, as I am. As all 
South Dakotans know Secretary Anderson recently announced his 
retirement. He will be missed. His efforts to raise this issue to the 
national level will be a legacy that South Dakota cattle producers will 
long remember and be proud of. Passing the amendment I have offered 
would demonstrate that Congress has listened to Secretary Anderson.
  The Senate needs to carefully review this amendment and other 
possible amendments that address issues confronting the U.S. cattle 
industry. Packer concentration, price manipulation, possible price 
fixing, and captive supply all must be looked at and a definite course 
of action implemented. I will withhold a detailed discussion of this 
amendment at this time. I offered the amendment to give my colleagues a 
chance to review it. I expect others may want to seek amendments to 
this proposal. I welcome any suggestions from all my colleagues. The 
goal, again, is to do the right thing for our cattlemen, and to do it 
as soon as possible.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me ask my colleagues to take a 
look at this amendment, to make their suggestions. Our agricultural 
industry in the United States is in pretty good shape at this moment 
except for our cattlemen. We need to take a number of steps. We need to 
work on packer concentration. We need to get more of our beef into 
Japan, and some of those countries, and China. We need to get some of 
the tariffs lowered in some of the Asian countries on beef. We also 
need to take some steps domestically to be sure that we do not overlook 
the plight of our cattlemen at this time.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment and I ask that my colleagues 
consider it and that we take what action we can to help our cattlemen 
in the closing days of this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                      pressler livestock amendment

       Section 1. Captive Supply:
       This section (from S. 1939) addresses producers' concern of 
     captive supplies. A better definition of captive supply and 
     more information regarding captive supplies will bring 
     greater price discovery to producers.
       The Packers and Stockyards Act would be amended by defining 
     ``captive supply'' as livestock acquired by packers delivered 
     7 or more days before slaughter under a standing purchase 
     agreement, forward contract, or packer ownership, feeding or 
     financing.
       This section also requires and annual report from the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture on the number and volume of U.S. 
     livestock marketed or slaughtered. This report must include 
     information on transactions involving livestock in regional 
     and local markets. The confidentiality of individual 
     livestock transactions would be maintained.
       Finally, this section would require the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to make available within 24 hours information 
     received concerning captive supply transactions.
       Section 2. Livestock Dealer Trust:
       This section (S. 1707, revised) would establish a Livestock 
     Dealer Trust. This provision was part of the Senate-passed 
     version of the new Farm Bill, but was dropped in conference.
       The section amends the Packers and Stockyards Act and 
     establishes a statutory trust for the benefit of livestock 
     sellers who sell to livestock dealers and market agencies 
     that buy on commission. To ensure prompt payment of livestock 
     sellers, all livestock purchased in cash sales by a dealer or 
     market agency buying livestock on commission shall have all 
     related property (i.e. livestock, receivables or proceeds) 
     held in a ``floating `` trust until the unpaid seller 
     receives full payment.
       Section 3. Cooperative Bargaining:
       This section (from S. 1939) ensures that producer 
     cooperatives are fairly treated by handlers of agricultural 
     products. The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 would 
     be amendment to make it unlawful for handlers of agricultural 
     products to fail to engage in good-faith negotiations with 
     producer cooperatives. It would also make it unlawful to 
     unfairly discriminate among producer cooperatives with 
     respect to the purchase, acquisition, or other handling of 
     agricultural products.
       Section 4. Labeling of Meat and Meat Food Products:
       This section (from S. 1939) would require country of origin 
     labels on graded meats. Producers and consumers alike have 
     made it abundantly clear that meat needs to be labeled to 
     show country of origin. Under this section, the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act would be amended to require graded meat that 
     was either imported, or produced from an animal that was 
     located outside the United States for at least 120 days, be 
     labeled showing the country of origin.
       Section 5. Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry 
     Products:
       This section (S. 1862) would permit the interstate shipment 
     of state-inspected meat and poultry products. The section 
     would amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act to allow states to apply to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for the interstate shipment of meat 
     and poultry products. The Secretary of Agriculture first must 
     verify that the state's mandatory inspection requirements are 
     equal to or greater than the Federal inspection, reinspection 
     and sanitation requirements.
       Upon verification by the Secretary, the prohibition on 
     interstate shipment of meat and poultry products inspected 
     soley by the state shall be waived. Once a waiver has been 
     granted, the Secretary of Agriculture may perform random 
     inspections of state-inspected plants to ensure that 
     mandatory state inspection requirements are equal to or 
     greater than Federal requirements. If a state does not 
     maintain its inspection requirements to Federal levels, the 
     Secretary shall reimpose the restriction against the 
     interstate distribution of meat and poultry products.
       This section was recommended by members of USDA's packer 
     concentration commission and is strongly supported in the 
     agricultural community. Lifting the market restrictions 
     imposed on state-inspected meat and poultry processors would 
     slow the concentration in meat packing by enabling small-and 
     mid-size processors to expand their operations and create 
     more jobs. 400 state-inspected plants have gone out of 
     business since 1993 because of the prohibition. This section 
     would provide the same opportunity for small business owners 
     and operators that exists for large corporations and foreign 
     competitors.
       Section 6. Review of Federal Agriculture Credit Policies:
       This section (from S. 1949) establishes an interagency 
     working group to study the extent that Federal lending 
     practices have contributed to concentration in the livestock 
     and dairy markets. This interagency working group would be 
     established by the Secretary of Agriculture after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman 
     of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and 
     the Chairman of the Board of the Farm Credit Administration.
       Section 7. International Barriers to Trade:
       This section (from S. Res. 277) expresses the Sense of the 
     Senate that certain actions be take to address international 
     barriers to trade. Those actions are as follows:
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture should continue to 
     identify and seek to eliminate unfair trade barriers and 
     subsidies that affect U.S. beef markets;
       (2) the U.S. and Canada should expeditiously negotiate the 
     elimination of animal health barriers that are not based on 
     sound science. Many U.S. cattle producers are concerned that 
     Canada requires more stringent veterinary and inspection 
     requirements on U.S. cattle entering their market than what 
     the U.S. requires on Canadian cattle entering our market;
       (3) the import ban on beef from cattle treated with 
     approved growth hormones imposed by the European Union should 
     be terminated. The European Union's ban on U.S. cattle and 
     beef is not scientifically based, represents an unreasonable 
     barrier to U.S. trade, and has cost U.S. beef producers more 
     than $1 billion in export sales since 1989; and
       (4) the Secretary of Agriculture should use the Export 
     Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) and the Intermediate 
     Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103) to promote the 
     export of U.S. agricultural commodities to countries of 
     Africa.
       Section 8. Animal Drug Availability Act:
       This section (S. 773, revised) contains the Animal Drug 
     Availability Act of 1996. The Act contains recommended 
     changes to new animal drug application approvals to provide 
     the Food and Drug Administration with greater flexibility to 
     determine when animal drugs are effective for their intended 
     uses. The Act would establish streamlined approval 
     requirements for new individual animal drugs or active 
     ingredients sought to be used in combination. Currently 
     separate tests are required for approval of these drugs.
       This section also would require the Food and Drug 
     Administration to consider legislative and regulatory options 
     for facilitating approvals of animal drugs for minor species 
     and minor uses, and to announce its proposals for legislative 
     or regulatory changes within 18 months of the date of 
     enactment. Currently, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
     does not address animal drug approvals for minor species or 
     uses.

  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we, of course, will take a careful look at 
this

[[Page S10582]]

amendment. It is on a subject of which this Senator is well aware, as a 
member of the Commerce Committee, of which the Senator from South 
Dakota is chairman. It does address a very real need. On the other 
hand, Mr. President, it obviously has nothing to do with an 
appropriations bill for the Department of Interior and related 
agencies.
  The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and I have, as a 
policy, determined that we will not be friendly toward amendments which 
are entirely nongermane or entirely nonrelevant to issues before this 
bill. If we do, if amendments like this begin to pass, it is almost 
certain that the bill itself will be taken down. The sponsors of the 
amendments likely will not be successful in reaching their policy 
goals, and we will have frustrated the appropriations process.
  So I express the hope, and subject to what I hear from the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, that the Senator from South 
Dakota will be able to make a very important point, as he has, and as 
he has done eloquently, without opening up this bill in a way that has 
frustrated and perhaps destroyed some other appropriations bills, 
including the one that preceded this as a matter of debate. With that, 
as we do not have any votes to take place today, I suggest that we set 
the amendment aside and move forward to another subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment has just been laid 
aside.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 5352

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 
 cooperative agreements for the restoration and enhancement of biotic 
                      resources on watershed land)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk involving a 
voluntary watershed restoration effort on private lands. I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5352.

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

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . WATERSHED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--For fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, appropriations made for the Bureau of Land 
     Management may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for 
     the purpose of entering into cooperative agreements with 
     willing private landowners for restoration and enhancement of 
     fish, wildlife, and other biotic resources on public or 
     private land or both that benefit these resources on public 
     lands within the watershed.
       (b) Direct and Indirect Watershed Agreements.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior may enter into a watershed 
     restoration and enhancement agreement--
       (1) direct with a willing private landowner; or
       (2) indirectly through an agreement with a State, local, or 
     tribal government or other public entity, educational 
     institution, or private nonprofit organization.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--In order for the Secretary to 
     enter into a watershed restoration and enhancement 
     agreement--
       (1) the agreement shall--
       (A) include such terms and conditions mutually agreed to by 
     the Secretary and the landowner;
       (B) improve the viability of and otherwise benefit the 
     fish, wildlife, and other biotic resources on public land in 
     the watershed;
       (C) authorize the provision of technical assistance by the 
     Secretary in the planning of management activities that will 
     further the purposes of the agreement;
       (D) provide for the sharing of costs of implementing the 
     agreement among the Federal Government, the landowner, and 
     other entities, as mutually agreed on by the affected 
     interests; and
       (E) ensure that any expenditure by the Secretary pursuant 
     to the agreement is determined by the Secretary to be in the 
     public interest; and
       (2) the Secretary may require such other terms and 
     conditions as are necessary to protect the public investment 
     on private lands, provided such terms and conditions are 
     mutually agreed to by the Secretary and the landowner.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at the beginning, I want to thank my friend 
from Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Gorton. He has 
been very helpful, both the chairman and his staff, in our preparation 
of this effort. I want him to know that I very much appreciate all his 
help. Senator Byrd is not here, but he, as well, has been very helpful 
to me. I want to thank both Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd at this 
time for their assistance.
  As Senator Gorton knows, in particular, the natural resources 
questions in the West are especially polarized. They are ones where so 
often there are very heated and controversial fights between groups, 
particularly industry groups and environmental groups.
  I and others, and I know the Senator from Washington is interested in 
this, are continually making efforts to look at new models, in effect, 
new paradigms, for resolving some of these natural resources questions 
and trying to bring people together. It is for this reason that I offer 
this amendment, Mr. President.
  My sense is some of the most exciting work being done in our country, 
particularly in our Pacific Northwest, involves voluntary, purely 
private efforts, where people look to try to get beyond some of the old 
controversies, some of the old battles, and come together to resolve 
natural resources questions in a balanced way.
  What our history in the Northwest has always been about is protecting 
our treasures, protecting our natural resources, while at the same time 
being sensitive to economics. It is my sense that some of the voluntary 
watershed restoration projects on private lands give us the chance to 
accelerate the effort, to find these new models for resolving natural 
resources questions. It is for that reason that I offer this amendment 
today.
  This amendment would make it possible, Mr. President and colleagues, 
for willing private landowners to work on cooperative efforts with the 
Bureau of Land Management to restore damaged watersheds so they can 
provide habitat to salmon and other species. It is going to make more 
effective the Bureau of Land Management's watershed restoration efforts 
in a fashion that involves no extra costs to our taxpayers while at the 
same time protecting the private property rights of citizens in our 
country.
  I got particularly interested in this issue, Mr. President, when I 
met with a watershed restoration group in Coos Bay on our south coast. 
They had been working with a number of the natural resources agencies, 
getting some funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work on 
projects that involve private landowners. The group was also interested 
in working in a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Land Management 
but had been unable to do so.
  This watershed restoration group, which involved environmental 
leaders, industry leaders, fishermen, a cross section of people, 
approached the Bureau of Land Management and were told by the Secretary 
that the Bureau of Land Management interprets its authority to work on 
projects involving private landowners as limited to what they describe 
as planning activities. The Bureau of Land Management said at that time 
to this group on the south coast in Oregon that they did not think they 
had the authority to actually go out and fund improvements on private 
lands.
  It is my view that the Bureau of Land Management ought to have the 
clear authority to work with willing private landowners on cooperative 
watershed restoration efforts. In many cases, the only way to solve a 
watershed problem or restore species habitat is to target both public 
and private lands in the watershed. You cannot solve the problem if you 
focus just on the public lands.
  This is the most biologically responsible approach to species 
management. It recognizes that many species frequently cross property 
lines, moving

[[Page S10583]]

from public to private property and back the other way. As a result, 
restoring habitat on private lands may in certain cases be the most 
effective investment for survival of species also found on Bureau of 
Land Management and other public lands.
  For a moment, let me take an example where 90 percent of the land in 
the watershed is owned by the Bureau of Land Management but the source 
of the watershed problem is the 10 percent that is privately owned. In 
this case, the problem is most likely not going to be solved if the 
Bureau of Land Management can only spend money for improvements on the 
BLM land. The result will be that the watershed problem is either not 
going to be solved, or else the Bureau of Land Management is going to 
end up wasting money funding improvements only on the Bureau of Land 
Management lands.

  There is a simple and straightforward solution: Give the Bureau of 
Land Management clear authority to work with willing private landowners 
on cooperative watershed restoration projects in cases where this will 
do the most good for the whole watershed. This way, the public's and 
the watershed's concerns--taxpayers', industries', and environmental 
concerns--all get addressed.
  To be eligible for funding under this legislation, the project site 
on private land must be in the same watershed as the Bureau of Land 
Management lands. But the private land does not have to border directly 
with the Bureau of Land Management lands. The key consideration ought 
to be the biological and ecological connections between the private 
lands and the Bureau of Land Management lands.
  Taking for a second what happens if salmon use both forks of a river 
in a single watershed, but only one of the forks contains public land, 
this legislation would allow the Bureau of Land Management to spend 
money on private land in the other fork where this would benefit the 
survival or recovery of the species as a whole in the watershed. The 
Bureau of Land Management would also be authorized to spend money on 
private lands where this would provide for immediate protection to the 
threatened or endangered species found on the public land or where 
spending the money on private land is more beneficial to the overall 
recovery of the species.
  Now, at the same time, we do not want the Bureau of Land Management 
spending taxpayer money on projects that benefit only the private 
landowners. To ensure that this does not happen, the amendment requires 
there be a benefit to fish, wildlife, or other resources on public 
lands. The Secretary must also determine that the project is in the 
public interest in order for the Bureau of Land Management to purchase 
them.
  Finally, Mr. President, my amendment provides important protections 
for private property owners participating in cooperative watershed 
restoration efforts. From start to finish, the process is completely 
voluntary. Under the amendment, the Bureau of Land Management can only 
enter into watershed restoration agreements that are mutually agreed to 
by the Secretary, as well as by the private landowner. If there is any 
part of the agreement that the private landowner objects to, that 
landowner can simply say no to the agreement.
  What we have, Mr. President, is an amendment that, in my view, will 
be good for watershed restoration efforts. It will be good in terms of 
maximizing taxpayer funds during these tough times, and it fully 
protects the rights of private landowners. I hope this will be adopted.
  I thank the Senator from Washington. Both he and his staff have been 
very helpful, as well as the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment proposed by the Senator 
from Oregon is, indeed, relevant to the subject matter of this bill. It 
is one, as he has already eloquently pointed out, that attempts to 
bring people together, people who have differing views often, and not 
only individuals with differing views but Government agencies, 
especially the Bureau of Land Management, and private landowners, in a 
way that benefits fish and wildlife, in a way that benefits the 
environment, and in a way which is entirely voluntary.
  He has worked with me and my office on all of the details of this 
proposal. I am delighted to say from the point of view of this Senator 
and the managers of the bill, the proposal is not only acceptable, but 
one for which I have an enthusiastic response and full support.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am informed that this amendment has been 
cleared by the manager on the other side of the aisle. Under those 
circumstances, from my perspective, it is ripe for a vote and for 
acceptance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5352) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is obvious that the Interior 
appropriations bill is open for amendment. We are open for business. We 
have now heard an amendment proposed by the Senator from South Dakota. 
We have accepted one by the Senator from Oregon.
  For the information of Members, under the previous order, at 3 
o'clock, the Chair is to recognize the Senator from Arkansas to 
introduce an amendment on grazing fees, which, obviously, will be a 
very controversial amendment. I hope there will be a full and complete 
debate on that amendment this afternoon so that it is ready for a vote 
tomorrow. It will not, under the unanimous-consent agreement, come to a 
vote today, but we can move this bill forward and make progress on this 
bill by having a thorough debate on that issue, one that, while it is 
controversial, is certainly relevant to this appropriations bill.
  In the meantime, the floor is open for any other Member who wishes to 
introduce an amendment to begin discussion, and perhaps conclude it if 
the amendment is not a controversial one. I invite other Members of the 
Senate who are within the sound of this debate to bring those 
amendments to the floor and we will deal with them as expeditiously and 
fairly as we possibly can.
  With that, 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
allowed to speak for 4 or 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and thank the floor manager, my good 
friend, the senior Senator from the State of Washington.

                          ____________________