[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7920-S7934]
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, 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 965

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes, equally divided, on the 
motion to table amendment No. 965, the Durbin Amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand that we have 2 minutes, 
equally divided, on the motion to table the Durbin Amendment. I made 
the motion to table. The Durbin Amendment seeks to do away with crop 
insurance payments for tobacco farmers and any disaster assistance 
payments that might fall due under the law. I moved to table it. It 
carried with it a second degree amendment by the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. Ford], which limits crop insurance payments to farms 400 acres or 
smaller.
  So, as you may see, unless we table the Durbin amendment, you are 
going to cause a lot of disruptions in agriculture for two reasons. I 
hope that the Senate will vote to table this amendment. This is an 
agriculture appropriations bill. Both of these amendments would change 
the law, not funding levels. Let's stick to the purpose of our bill and 
please vote to table the Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment eliminates the Federal 
subsidy for tobacco. How many times have we faced that question?
  Senators, the Federal Government says that tobacco is dangerous. Why 
do the taxpayers continue to subsidize it? We subsidize it in the form 
of crop insurance.
  Senator Gregg and I are offering this amendment to eliminate once and 
for all crop insurance for tobacco. Some Senators have said that is 
unfair. Every crop gets insured. Right? Wrong. Sixty-seven crops are 
presently ensured. Sixteen hundred are not.
  The list goes on and on and on. I am about to drop them.
  What is this about? It is about a crop that is perfectly legal and 
perfectly lethal. Tobacco is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in 
America today.
  Let's get our public health policy and our subsidies straight.
  So, to vote against the crop insurance for tobacco, the appropriate 
vote is ``no'' on the motion to table and ``no'' on more subsidies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from 
Mississippi to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Collins
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 965) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?


                     Amendment No. 969, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Helms amendment 
No. 969.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the issue here was joined with the 
offering of the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Iowa. It is 
an amendment related to the Food and Drug Administration's funds for an 
antismoking regulatory program that has been developed and put out by 
the Food and Drug Administration. The issue is whether or not there is 
sufficient funds in the FDA account to help pay the cost of this 
regulatory program.
  Some Senators may not be aware of the fact that we have increased in 
this legislation the proposed funding for FDA by over $20 million. As a 
matter of fact, I think the total is around $30 million--$24 million 
for the FDA account for this next fiscal year. This is in comparison 
with this current year's funding level. So there are funds available to 
carry out the additional food safety initiatives that the Food and Drug 
Administration has proposed. There is a specified $4.9 million 
available, the same amount as last year, for the FDA's smoking 
regulatory program, or antismoking regulatory program.
  One thing that has to be kept in mind, I think, to try to understand, 
get a perspective on this issue is that litigation is underway. There 
was a lawsuit filed in North Carolina. Some of the regulatory 
initiatives of the FDA were upheld and some are on appeal.
  Mr. President, the other aspect of this issue is that there has been 
a negotiated settlement among attorneys general and the tobacco 
industry that involves the commitment of the tobacco industry to make 
certain payments to help pay health costs and Food and Drug 
Administration activities in connection with the use of tobacco and 
trying to convince people that smoking tobacco is bad for you.
  This bill does not in any way try to adversely affect or take away 
from any initiative of that kind. We did say, when we were discussing 
this legislation in the subcommittee and at the full committee, that we 
assumed some funds could be made available from the tobacco industry to 
help pay costs that might not be fully funded in this legislation, 
costs of the Food and Drug Administration. So we see nothing wrong

[[Page S7921]]

with making that assumption in our bill. The Harkin amendment imposes 
an assessment on tobacco companies that would cause funds then to be 
created that could then be given to the FDA for additional program 
costs.
  The Senator from North Carolina has offered a second-degree amendment 
changing the source of the funding from the assessment to an ethanol 
assessment, so that the funds would come from the ethanol program, in 
effect, for the antismoking program of FDA. And so there is where we 
stand now.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered on the Helms amendment. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered on the Harkin amendment. And so that is the 
situation as I understand it. There was a suggestion that one way to 
deal with this is to put it before the Senate in the form of a motion 
to table the Harkin amendment.
  Now, I could make that motion, but I do not want to make that motion 
and cut off the right of Senators who want to speak on this issue. And 
I understand from the Senator from Iowa that he might want to speak 
further on it. The Senator from Rhode Island is a cosponsor of the 
Harkin amendment and he wanted to speak. So I am reluctant to make that 
motion. But it would be my hope that we could resolve the issue in that 
way. If that is not satisfactory to the Senate, the Senate can work its 
will. But that is the suggestion that I have for dealing with the 
issue, of wrapping it all up in one vote, if the motion to table is 
approved. If the motion to table is not approved, then we have a vote 
on the Helms amendment and we have a vote on the Harkin amendment. So 
that is my suggestion for how we can wrap it all up.

  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am just one Senator. I am trying to help get this bill 
passed and get this issue resolved, and I hope that that can be 
embraced by the proponents of both sides.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I say to my friend from 
Mississippi that the amendment I offered is an entirely separate matter 
the proposed tobacco settlement that is being worked out with the 
attorneys general and the tobacco companies. In fact, I submitted for 
the Record earlier a copy of a letter from 33 attorneys general 
involved in the tobacco settlement supporting full funding for FDA's 
tobacco initiative. I have also a letter here from Michael Moore, who 
is the attorney general of the State of Mississippi who is the lead 
attorney general in the negotiations. He stated here, ``I would like to 
express my strong support for your amendment.'' Dated July 21. That 
would be 2 days ago.
  And he said, ``There has been some confusion regarding your amendment 
and whether it would interfere or conflict with the proposed settlement 
with the tobacco industry.'' He went on to say that he supported it.
  So this has nothing to do with the proposed tobacco settlement 
whatsoever. What this has to do with is the part of the proposed FDA 
rule that was upheld by the court in Greensboro, NC. The court upheld 
the authority of FDA to regulate tobacco sales to minors. The FDA 
promulgated the rule. It was upheld by the courts.
  Now, the administration has requested $34 million to implement the 
rule. It needs this amount to carry out the rules upheld by the court. 
However, in the Agriculture appropriations bill there is only $4.9 
million to implement it. So we cannot reach out to all 50 States to get 
this rule implemented to cut down on sales of tobacco to young people. 
And due to the involvement, I might say the good involvement, of the 
Senator from West Virginia, a provision was added to our amendment that 
says that in carrying out the responsibilities under the Food and Drug 
Administration initiative, States are encouraged to coordinate 
enforcement efforts with the enforcement of laws that prohibit under-
age drinking. That is, I might add, a very worthwhile addition to this 
amendment. So I hope Senators are not confused. This has nothing to do 
with the tobacco settlement whatsoever. This has everything to do with 
whether or not we are going to have enforcement of the FDA rule to 
prevent sales of tobacco to kids.
  I would also point out there is some talk that somehow this FDA 
initiative is duplicative of the SAMHSA regulations. I am informed that 
it is not. This is because SAMHSA is not an enforcement program but FDA 
is. SAMHSA provides no incentives for retailers to stop illegal sales 
to kids. FDA will educate retailers about their responsibility and 
penalize retailers if they repeatedly sell to kids. And so SAMHSA is a 
lot different than FDA's tobacco initiative.
  Now, why does the FDA need the full $34 million? Well, basically, the 
Court provided FDA with full authority to regulate cigarettes and 
smokeless tobacco products and with full authority to continue 
implementing provisions of the FDA initiative that sets a minimum age 
of 18 for buying tobacco and requires retailers to check the photo ID 
of consumers seeking to purchase tobacco.
  Given that there are more than a half a million retailers in this 
country, it will be a big task to educate retailers about their 
responsibilities. Funds are also needed to conduct periodic compliance 
checks. So the $34 million is not that much money given the task at 
hand. The Court did strike down parts of the FDA rule, but resources 
are needed to enforce the minimum age and ID check rules that were 
fully upheld by the Court.

  Mr. President, $34 million is a very small investment when you 
realize that tobacco use drains more than $50 billion from our health 
care system each year. So this is a very small amount of money.
  Now, Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Might I inquire 
of the Chair, what is the business before the Senate? I make a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the Helms 
amendment. I believe that is 969.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, Mr. President, I think that we are all very clear 
on this. Now, I had in good faith with the Senator from North Carolina 
made an agreement earlier that I would be permitted the yeas and nays 
on my amendment, which required unanimous consent at that point, that 
the Senator would then be allowed to modify his amendment, which he 
did, and then we asked for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the 
Senator from North Carolina.
  We could then have a vote on his amendment and then have a vote on my 
underlying amendment--in other words, a vote first on the amendment of 
the Senator from North Carolina. If that prevailed, well, that would be 
the end of it. If it went down, then there would be an up-or-down vote 
on my amendment. And the Senator can correct me if I am wrong, but I 
believe that was the agreement and we shook hands on it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield for a 
question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield only for a question.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I think it might be helpful if we engaged in a few 
questions and answers to understand precisely what this amendment is. I 
have not been sure all along I understood it.
  There is presently a Federal law which prohibits the sale of 
cigarettes to anybody under 18 years of age, is that correct?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, that is true.
  Mr. BUMPERS. And does the Federal Government provide any funds to the 
States for enforcement of that law at present?
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand that that is, indeed, what the FDA 
initiative is for, is to provide funds to the States to implement it 
and to carry it out.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The question is, do we provide any money for them at 
this moment for the enforcement of this law?
  Mr. HARKIN. This Senator is not aware of any. However, I would not 
unequivocally state there is not.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I understand there is $4.9 million available for that 
purpose, is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

[[Page S7922]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Arkansas is correct with respect to the 
$4.9 million. As I understand it, the $4.9 million is what is expected 
to be spent this year for the first step in this initiative, this FDA 
initiative to cut down on tobacco sales to minors under the age of 18. 
The $4.9 million is the first step in that process.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Now, the administration has asked for an additional $34 
million?
  Mr. HARKIN. No, they have asked for $34 million. That includes the 
$4.9 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That includes the present 4-plus million.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. It raises the 4.9 up to 34.
  Mr. BUMPERS. This money will be distributed to the States to assist 
them in the enforcement of this law?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Now, if we do not provide--we have imposed, in effect, a 
law that we are requesting the States to enforce. We passed a law 
saying to the States, you can't allow sales of cigarettes to anybody 
under 18, and we have not given them any money to enforce it. How does 
that play with the law we passed here either last year or the year 
before on mandates to the States with no money?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator will recall the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho, [Mr. Kempthorne], led the fight here to provide that the Federal 
Government in the future must pay the States for any mandates we impose 
on them and for which we do not provide any money. I am asking the 
Senator, why doesn't this come under the category of a violation, as 
long as we required them to enforce the ``18-year-old'' prohibition, 
but we haven't given them any money? Why is that not a violation of the 
law we passed here prohibiting mandates on local jurisdictions without 
money?
  Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it, what the Senator is suggesting is 
that this money is to help the Federal Government meet its obligations 
of ensuring that we do not mandate States to do things which we do not 
fund.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, essentially that is right, but what I am saying is 
at present we do not give the States but I think maybe $4-plus million, 
which is not nearly enough.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I might respond, that $4.9 million only covers 10 
States. We want to cover 50 States. Thus the need for the $34 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the Senator this question, changing gears 
just a little bit. Could the Senator tell us, is there a figure 
available as to what it would take to effectively enforce this law in 
all 50 States?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am told that figure is $34 million. And that is what 
they are requesting. They are requesting $34 million to expand it from 
10 States to 50 States.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Under the rule of thumb, I come from a State that has 1 
percent of the Nation's population. When I was Governor of that State 
we used to always assume that under all the formulas, welfare and 
otherwise, we would get 1 percent, because we have 1 percent of the 
population. In this case, if we had $34 million and we put it out on 
that basis, Arkansas would get $340,000.
  I don't think that would be enough to even get the water hot, in 
enforcing this law.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I may respond again to the Senator, I think there is a 
bit of confusion here. It is my understanding that the FDA rule does 
not impose a mandate on States. It imposes an obligation on retailers 
who sell tobacco or tobacco products not to sell them to anyone under 
the age of 18. In fact, the rule says that anyone under the age of 27 
must provide a valid photo ID to prove their age is over the age of 18. 
The money that we are seeking here is to go out to the States and local 
communities to help them, and to help retailers, enforce and comply 
with the FDA rule.
  The FDA rule does not apply to a State. It applies to retailers, and 
not to a State.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the Senator this question. If the amendment 
of the Senator fails and there is no money going to the States and the 
States simply take the position that they are not going to enforce this 
rule because they don't have the money to do it, then there will be no 
enforcement?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is true.
  Mr. BUMPERS. And there would be no way for the Feds to make them 
enforce it?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely correct, there is no way we 
could make them enforce it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If we develop a formula along the lines I mentioned a 
moment ago, where say my State of Arkansas would get 1 percent, what if 
we were to say to the Federal Government: We don't like the rule and we 
are not going to enforce it. Keep your $340,000. Would the Federal 
Government have any recourse against the State of Arkansas?
  Mr. HARKIN. No, because the States will contract with FDA to help 
carry out the FDA rule. But there is no mandate that the States have to 
enforce the FDA rule. We are seeking, with this amount of money, $34 
million, a way of implementing the rule through the use of State and 
local governments to help enforce this rule. But there is no mandate 
that they have to do so; absolutely none whatsoever.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. FORD. Could I get in here just a minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Does the Senator from Iowa yield 
to the Senator from Alaska, who is asking to be recognized?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. FORD. May I ask the Senator a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa controls the times.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield for a question from the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. You are talking about funding a regulation and not a 
statutory provision, isn't that correct?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is true.
  Mr. FORD. Isn't it true, under SAMHSA and the so-called Synar 
amendment, that the enforcement is there and there is about $1 billion 
in this particular area as block grants? Isn't that true?
  Mr. HARKIN. I respond to the Senator this way, and we had this 
discussion earlier. The Synar regulation of SAMHSA is not an 
enforcement program. FDA is. SAMHSA provides no incentives for 
retailers to stop illegal sales to kids. Through its tobacco 
initiative, FDA will educate retailers about their responsibility, and 
can assess penalties and penalize retailers if they repeatedly sell to 
kids. SAMHSA does not provide enforcement power or enforcement money.
  Mr. FORD. Under SAMHSA, as I understand it, the States are required 
to certify to SAMHSA that they are carrying out these laws and one of 
the requirements under SAMHSA, in the so-called Synar amendment, is 
sting operations. So the enforcement is there from the States 
certifying to SAMHSA that they are complying with the law. And $1 
billion is there, as I recall, for the enforcement because, if you 
don't enforce it and you don't certify it, then you lose your block 
grants. And that is pretty tough enforcement, in my opinion.
  Mr. HARKIN. I might respond to my friend from Kentucky, that, under 
the Synar amendment it is true that SAMHSA--SAMHSA imposes an--
  Mr. FORD. That's Japanese.
  Mr. HARKIN. Sets targets for the States to cut illegal sales to 
minors.
  Mr. FORD. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. If they do not do so, then the State could lose block 
grant funding--
  Mr. FORD. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. If they do not reduce smoking.
  Mr. FORD. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. But here is the catch. The tobacco industry was 
successful in pulling the teeth from this provision. Synar has no teeth 
because there are no hard targets. It is discretionary whether any 
State will lose its block grant. That is why SAMHSA is not an 
enforcement program, no one is going to lose their block grants, 
because there are no teeth in the targets. If States miss their 
targets, they are not going to lose their block grants. To my 
knowledge, no State has.
  Mr. FORD. I say to my good friend--
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield further without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Under the Synar amendment, the States have passed laws to 
comply with SAMHSA. And, under that

[[Page S7923]]

compliance they are required to enforce the law. And they are to so 
certify. They are to so certify to HHS that they are doing it. And part 
of that requirement is the so-called sting operations, that you 
wouldn't notify an operation that you are going to inspect them.
  So, this to me is double jeopardy on the States. You are taking 
SAMHSA that can take away their block grants and you have FDA, that you 
are trying to give money to, to enforce something that you already have 
the enforcement mechanism to do.
  We may disagree on this, but $1 billion is a lot of money. It is not 
an unfunded mandate.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would reply to the Senator from Kentucky again in this 
way. SAMHSA does in fact provide that States should or must enforce 
this and reduce smoking by passing laws that would do that, to take 
action to do that. However, there are absolutely no teeth at all in 
this SAMHSA provision because, if States don't do it, there are 
essentially no effective penalties that apply.
  Mr. FORD. Senator, losing their block grant is a penalty.
  Mr. HARKIN. A State could conceivably lose its block grant but there 
are no hard targets that hold the states accountable to enforce laws 
that cut teenage smoking.
  Mr. FORD. They passed a law saying what you have to do.
  Mr. HARKIN. But there are no teeth saying if you don't meet the 
requirements of law that you lose their block grants. There are no 
teeth in it.
  Mr. FORD. It reminds me of the military, the teeth and the tail. I 
believe the teeth here have been pulled.
  Mr. HARKIN. The teeth have been pulled out of SAMHSA. But 
nonetheless, I say to the Senator from Kentucky, that SAMHSA applies to 
the States. The States do their thing. What the FDA initiative goes to 
are the retailers. The FDA rule goes directly to retailers. And what 
this money is used for is to go out and contract with State and local 
jurisdictions to enforce the rules to prevent teen smoking and to help 
retailers understand what they have to do. And the FDA can absolutely 
set up penalties for retailers who do not comply, who are repeat 
offenders in selling tobacco to underage kids. That is not the case 
under the SAMHSA rules. I am sorry.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, without the Senator losing his right to the 
floor, I would like to ask him another question.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. FORD. How can States regulate the purchase of cigarettes without 
dealing with retailers? There is no way. Because that is where the 
tobacco is sold. So, therefore, they do deal with retailers. Under the 
SAMHSA rule they have, based on their law in their State, under that 
statute, to comply with SAMHSA. And you have funded it by $1 billion 
and that is a block grant to the States.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, let's be clear what we are talking 
about when we are talking about SAMHSA. SAMHSA and the States can pass 
a law and they can deal with retailers. But there are no hard targets 
in SAMHSA to say: Here is what you have to do or you will certainly 
lose your block grant. The State can pass all kinds of laws but, if the 
State laws don't meet a target, then SAMHSA has no way of going to the 
State and saying, ``Look, you didn't meet the requirements of the law 
and therefore we will take away your mental health and substance abuse 
block grants.''
  If there were, in the Synar amendment, a provision that said that, if 
a State, for example, cannot show that by year one they have taken this 
step and this step and this step, and that they have met the target--if 
in that case they then would lose their block grants, I would then 
agree with the Senator from Kentucky.
  That is not the case in the Synar amendment. It is a lot of nice 
words, but it doesn't really get to the heart of it, because there are 
no effective penalties, there is no real trigger, there is no hard 
target that, if a State doesn't do something, they then will lose their 
block grant.
  On the other hand, the proposed FDA rule upheld by the courts goes to 
the retailers, and FDA can--not must--but can contract with States and 
contract with local jurisdictions for enforcement of the FDA rules. FDA 
will also provide information, resources, support and help through 
outreach. A lot of times the small businesses don't really know what 
they have to do, and outreach can help them carry out this rule 
requiring the photo ID under age 27.
  So I don't want to get this FDA initiative confused with SAMHSA at 
all. This is something entirely different. I don't know if the Senator 
from Alaska wanted me to yield for a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Alaska would like to have the floor, 
Mr. President.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I was saying earlier before I yielded 
to the Senator from Arkansas, I was talking about the situation that we 
had agreed to, that I thought I agreed to. I might just also say that 
the Helms amendment provides no funds to reduce tobacco smoking in any 
way. It creates a 3-cent tax on each gallon of ethanol. It puts it in a 
trust fund to be used for programs within the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration, but it doesn't allow the money 
to be spent unless funding is included in some appropriations bill. So 
it really doesn't provide an alternative source of funding. It just 
sets up a trust fund that you take money out of ethanol and put in 
there. But it really doesn't do anything.
  As I understood it, I had agreed with the Senator from North Carolina 
that I would not object to a unanimous consent request to have the yeas 
and nays on my amendment, which was required at that point in time; 
then he would modify his amendment; and then we would have the yeas and 
nays on his amendment; and if we could have an up-or-down vote on his 
amendment, which I thought was fair, and if we could have an up-or-down 
vote on my amendment, which I thought would be fair.
  Now I understand that that may not be the case; that now there may be 
a motion made to table the underlying amendment without a vote 
happening on the Helms amendment. I think there should be a vote on the 
Helms amendment to see whether or not people want to take the money out 
of ethanol and put it into a trust fund which doesn't go anywhere, or 
whether Senators would rather raise the assessment, as the amendment by 
Senator Chafee and I, and others, does: to raise the marketing 
assessment now from 1 percent to 2.1 percent, remove the half a percent 
that farmers have to pay now, make tobacco companies pay the full 2.1 
percent, in order to offset the $34 million needed to fund the FDA's 
youth tobacco initiative.
  That really is the essence of the two amendments, and I believe we 
ought to have a vote on the two amendments. So, therefore, Mr. 
President, I move to table the Helms amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Carolina to raise a tax. The 
underlying amendment is an amendment to raise a fee, and then it turns 
around and spends the fee. I view my job as chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee--I beg your pardon, did he make a motion to 
table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for just a moment, 
apparently we have a motion to table, which is a nondebatable motion.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry. I apologize. I did not hear that motion. 
When was the motion made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It apparently was made just prior to the 
Senator from Iowa taking his seat.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it in order to table the 
underlying amendment now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point in time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I regret that, and I apologize to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the Helms amendment No. 969, as modified. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S7924]]

  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Bennett
     Campbell
     Cochran
     D'Amato
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roth
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 969), as modified, 
was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 968

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to appeal to the Senate on this 
bill. It is my hope that we can finish this bill tonight and move on to 
State, Justice, Commerce bill tomorrow and finish it before we recess 
for this week. We still will have two more to do or three more to do 
next week, in terms of appropriations bills. Our goal has been to try 
and finish all that we can before the recess.
  Mr. President, this amendment that is pending, the Harkin amendment, 
as I understand it, would require that this bill be referred to Ways 
and Means when it goes to the House. I do not believe that we should be 
handling this amendment on this bill. The Senator knows that has been 
my feeling. I am grateful to the Senator for bringing it to the floor 
rather than having a prolonged discussion of it in the Appropriations 
Committee. But it is my hope that the Senate will understand this 
motion I am about to make and support it, so that we can keep the 
momentum we have for our appropriations bills and finish this bill 
tonight. I do not think the bill will be able to be finished tonight 
unless we do get this motion of mine agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment and 
I will yield in a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment, and 
I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to the Senator from 
Iowa, and I also ask unanimous consent that my motion then be set aside 
so that the two leaders can arrange the balance of the program for this 
evening. There are Senators who have problems, as I understand it. The 
two leaders will address that. I have made the motion to table, right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made to table.
  Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the motion to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. I made a motion to table, and I asked unanimous consent 
that I be able to listen to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I can't hear anything. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the motion to table 
the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I asked the Senator to yield for a 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator didn't choose to do that. He moved 
to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the question, Senator?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Alaska stated that this amendment would 
mean that the bill would be referred to the Ways and Means Committee of 
the House. However, the amendment that Senator Chafee and I offered is 
on an assessment that was passed by the Agriculture Committee in 1990, 
not the Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Committee never 
had any jurisdiction over this.
  I am somewhat perplexed as to why this would then go to the Ways and 
Means Committee, since it was the Agriculture Committee that passed the 
assessment in 1990.
  Mr. STEVENS. I just want to say that my information was that that 
committee of the House has taken one of our bills previously.
  I do ask for the yeas and nays and renew my request that the leaders 
be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate will please come to order.
  The majority leader is now recognized on the leader time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have a unanimous consent request that we 
have been working on for the past few minutes with the members of the 
Appropriations Committee and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. 
This will give the Members some clear understanding of what they can 
expect for the balance of the evening and first thing in the morning.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to table the 
Harkin amendment occur at 6:30 p.m. this evening and, between now and 
6:30, Senator Bryan be recognized to offer an amendment regarding 
market promotion and there be 30 minutes for debate to be equally 
divided in the usual form and the vote occur in relation to that 
amendment following the motion to table at 6:30 and no amendments be in 
order to the Bryan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object. I ask that you might 
include in the request that I be recognized to offer an amendment 
tonight--it won't be voted on tonight--after the votes on tabling the 
Harkin and Bryan amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator repeat the question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I was asking whether or not you would modify the 
request that I be able to offer an amendment after we have those 2 
votes tonight. It won't be voted on tonight, I say to colleagues.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I had hoped to do that. I would be willing--
well, if I could get an agreement to what I have asked, and then I 
would like to propound a second unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't 
think I will. I have not seen the Bryan amendment and I think in your 
unanimous consent you stated that there could be no second-degree 
amendments, is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. The Bryan amendment is available and we do have 30 minutes 
reserved for debate equally divided, and I don't believe--under the 
request we asked for, no second-degree amendments would be in order.
  Mr. BURNS. I lift the objection. That will be fine.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is still heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader, 
because there is some, I think, misunderstanding here about going to 
the Ways and Means Committee, which I don't believe is correct, since 
customs fees are normally within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 
Committee in any event. There are in this bill more provisions that 
deal with authorization in

[[Page S7925]]

the agricultural area. I have a letter from Senator Lugar here saying 
that he supports our amendment, and he finds it fully consistent with 
his views. So this amendment would not be referred to the Ways and 
Means Committee of the House. There is other language in the bill that 
is in the authorizing level of the Agriculture Committee. This 
assessment was created in the reconciliation bill of 1990, under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. It is not a customs fee. I 
was wondering whether we could have a few more minutes to discuss this 
issue so we can clear it up.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are working very feverishly trying to 
accommodate a number of Senators that have very important meetings and 
matters they need to go to. We will have 35 more minutes here in which 
discussions or clarifications can be worked out, I hope, or at least an 
understanding of what is going on. I personally am not aware of what 
jurisdictions are involved. We are just trying to get a time schedule 
here that would accommodate everybody. I am sure that the Senators will 
continue discussing this issue in the meantime.

  Mr. HARKIN. As I understand the UC, there was to be a vote on the 
Harkin amendment at 6:35.
  Mr. LOTT. That's correct. Between now and 6:30, Senator Bryan will 
offer his amendment, with 30 minutes of debate. During that time, you 
can continue to talk.
  Mr. HARKIN. Can we have 5 minutes to discuss my amendment before the 
vote, from 6:30 to 6:35?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I modify my unanimous consent request that 
between 6:30 and 6:35 we have 5 minutes of debate, 2\1/2\ on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as 
modified?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will propound another unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after these two votes, a 
Grams amendment with regard to compact language be in order, followed 
by a Wellstone amendment, followed by the managers' amendment, with the 
vote or votes on those amendments and final passage to occur in the 
morning at 9:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I had 
said to the minority leader that I know colleagues have a schedule 
tonight and are willing to do the amendment. I wanted to have at least 
5 minutes tomorrow to summarize this amendment before people vote. That 
would be 10 minutes--in other words, 5 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. I modify my unanimous consent request that there be 10 
minutes, equally divided, before the votes in the morning on the Grams 
amendment, if necessary, and the Wellstone amendment, if necessary, and 
then final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request, as modified?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, is it my understanding 
that the compact amendment deals with the dairy matter? It is my 
understanding that, if it does deal with the dairy matter, there are 
Senators on our side that would object to any time agreement. So we 
will have to work out additional time agreements in regard to the Grams 
amendment before we can agree on this particular--
  Mr. LOTT. I didn't ask for any time agreements on the Grams amendment 
or the Wellstone amendment, thinking that Senators could have a full 
time opportunity tonight to discuss their amendments, without time 
limit. The only time limit would be that we would come in at 9:30 and 
have 10 minutes on Wellstone, equally divided, and then go to final 
passage.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, the Grams amendment reopens the question 
of the dairy compact, as described to me. That is an extraordinarily 
controversial issue involving the Northeast as well as the Midwest. I 
am told that Northeastern Senators would not agree to any time 
agreement so long as this amendment is pending.
  Mr. LOTT. So that we can get the train underway, we have one UC 
agreed to. Let's have the debate and we will have the votes at 6:30 
and, in the meantime, we will see if we can work out the final 
agreement that would get us to final votes tonight.
  I have to say that because we don't have this agreement, then we have 
no conclusion about whether or not there would be additional votes 
after 6:30. We will try to clarify that when we get through with those 
votes, sometime shortly before 7.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on my vote on tobacco 
farmers' eligibility for Federal crop insurance. I begin by noting that 
no substance rivals tobacco in its negative impact on our Nation's 
health: It is estimated that tobacco use is responsible for the 
premature deaths of 400,000 people annually.
  Caught up in the battle between elected and public health officials 
and tobacco companies are the tobacco farmers, whose honest labor is 
spent raising this dangerous but unfortunately often lucrative crop. It 
is contradictory at best--and irrational at worst--for the American 
taxpayers to on the one hand pay for the medical costs associated with 
tobacco use, and on the other, pay to subsidize tobacco production 
through reduced-rate crop insurance. For this reason, I oppose 
continuing to provide tobacco farmers with taxpayer-subsidized crop 
insurance.
  I do, however, believe that tobacco growers ought to be given 
reasonable warning that they stand to lose their Federal insurance, 
enabling them to find comparable coverage in the private insurance 
market. To me, it is simply an issue of fairness. I was troubled by the 
immediacy of the Durbin amendment's provisions, and, though I supported 
its objective, voted against it for this reason.


                           Amendment No. 970

       (Purpose: To limit funding for the market access program)

  Mr. BRYAN. 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 Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Reid, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 970.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Beginning on page 63, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through page 64, line 5, and insert the following:
       Sec. 718. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance under, or to pay the salaries 
     of personnel who carry out, a market promotion or market 
     access program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623)--
       (1) that provides assistance to the United States Mink 
     Export Development Council or any mink industry trade 
     association;
       (2) to the extent that the aggregate amount of funds and 
     value of commodities under the program exceeds $70,000,000; 
     or
       (3) that provides assistance to a foreign person (as 
     defined in section 9 of the Agricultural Foreign Investment 
     Disclosure Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 3508)).

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, as I understand the unanimous consent, it 
is 30 minutes equally divided, if I might inquire of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today, along with Senator 
Kerry, Senator Gregg, and Senator Grams, addresses a continuing misuse 
of taxpayer dollars by the now infamous Market Access Program, which 
has previously been known as the Market Promotion Program, and before 
that the Targeted Export Assistance Program.
  As most Senators know, I have worked to eliminate this unjustifiable 
program for more than 5 years. But the resilient program keeps coming 
back to life under different names and without the consent of the full 
Senate. When efforts to eliminate the program have been blocked, I have 
tried to reform the program and end its subsidies to large corporate 
and foreign interests. Twice now the Senate has voted to reduce funding 
for this program to a level of $70 million annually, and twice the 
funding has been restored off the Senate floor.

[[Page S7926]]

  Today, I am asking the Senate to join me once again to put an end to 
this program's abuses. It is inexcusable to allow this program to 
continue to funnel Americans hard-earned tax dollars to foreign 
companies to subsidize their advertising budgets. When the Market 
Access Program was created more than 10 years ago it was called the 
Targeted Export Assistance Program and was intended to be used by trade 
organizations to counter unfair trading practices by foreign 
competitors to disadvantage U.S. exports, and reduce funds from the 
Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation to promote 
U.S. goods in foreign markets. I don't think that anyone would disagree 
that expanding foreign markets for U.S. products is an important part 
of the overall competitive trade strategy. However, as this program 
evolved over the past 10 years the program was no longer limited to 
exporters facing unfair competition. Even as this body labored to cut 
back on Federal expenditures, scarce U.S. tax dollars continued to flow 
to major U.S. corporations as well as to foreign companies.
  Make no mistake. We are talking about more than $1.5 billion given 
away to corporate entities over the past decade. Unlike the Promotion 
Assistance Program provided through the Department of Commerce, these 
are grants. So they are never repaid.
  From 1986 to 1993, nearly $100 million of Market Promotion Program 
funds went to foreign companies. From 1993 to 1995, the program gave 
roughly $10 million to $12 million each year to foreign corporations.
  Many of my colleagues will recall that I joined with the 
distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Bumpers, to 
try to end this blatant waste of taxpayer dollars, and the Senate 
backed us in our efforts. During consideration of the 1996 farm bill, 
the Senate voted 59 to 37 in favor of my amendment to prevent Market 
Access Program funds from flowing to foreign companies. The amendment 
provided that only ``small business,'' as defined by the Small Business 
Administration, and Kapra Vaultsted Cooperatives, would provide for 
assistance through programs.
  In addition, funds for the program which were at that time set at 
$110 million were capped at $70 million. So the Senate has been on 
record to limit the amount of money in this program at $70 million and 
to eliminate money from this program going to foreign companies.
  I make it clear. My preference would be to eliminate the entire 
program because I believe this is corporate welfare in its worst form. 
That has not been the will of the Senate. But twice the Senate has been 
on record capping this program and preventing money from going to 
foreign companies.
  In reviewing the action of the Foreign Agriculture Service since the 
1996 farm bill changes took effect, it is clear however, that the 
Foreign Agriculture Service has not carried out the intent of the 
Senate in spite of the Senate's action to bar the distribution of 
Market Access Program funds to foreign companies. Companies based in 
the United Kingdom, Australia, and Saudi Arabia received more than 
$475,000 in fiscal year 1996 through this same program.
  There is a partial list of foreign companies that received funds 
after the Senate added in the 1996 agriculture bill a prohibition 
against money going to foreign companies. They did it by an ingenious 
but somewhat convoluted definition of what constitutes a foreign 
company.
  The purpose of this amendment is simply to do what the Senate has 
gone on record to do twice before, and that is to cap the amount of 
money going into the program at $70 million and to prevent money from 
going to foreign companies.
  I ask my colleagues to be supportive of this amendment.
  If I might cite an example. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute 
has received $55 million through this program since 1987. Supporters of 
this corporate giveaway would no doubt point out the importance of 
supporting Alaskan industry in foreign markets. But the Alaskan Seafood 
Marketing Institute gave at least $724,000 to USDA-listed foreign 
corporations in 1996 alone.

  So I must say it boggles the mind to imagine how much money has gone 
to these same companies since the program began in 1986.
  The National Peanut Council in 1996 distributed $50,000 to Internut 
Germany, $60,000 to Felix Polska, and $30,000 to the Basamh Trading 
Company of Saudi Arabia. All three of these companies were openly 
listed as foreign on the USDA list in past years. Yet, they continue to 
receive funds from the Market Access Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator has used 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  I reserve remainder of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  One part of the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Nevada 
suggests that foreign corporations should not be eligible for funds 
under this provision of our bill.
  Our bill does not contain any language relating to this program 
because we are not limiting the spending of funds that are directed by 
the legislative language in the farm bill. The last farm bill that was 
passed directs that funds be made available by the Department of 
Agriculture for this program in the amount of $90 million. Our bill 
does not limit the use of those funds. It does not any further restrict 
the use of those funds.
  The amendment the Senator has offered will change existing 
legislative language. I want to read the amendment.

       Funds made available to carry out this section shall not be 
     used to provide direct assistance to any foreign for-profit 
     corporation, or the corporation's use in promoting foreign-
     produced products. It shall not be used to provide direct 
     assistance to any for-profit corporation that is not 
     recognized as a small business concern described in section 
     3(a) of the Small Business Act, ``excluding a cooperative . . 
     . an association described in the first section of the act,'' 
     et cetera--``. . . a nonprofit trade association.''

  So the whole point is that this program has been reformed, reformed, 
and reformed. The Senator from Nevada just cannot be pleased that this 
program continues to be authorized and funded and funded. Our committee 
is simply letting the funds be used, as directed by law, by the 
Department of Agriculture.
  So what he is suggesting is cut the funds that are directed by law to 
be spent by the Department of Agriculture on this program, and to 
further restrict them with additional legislative language.
  What amount of reform is going to be enough? I mean it gets to the 
point where I suggest we are nit-picking this program now. Once upon a 
time there were charts in here with McDonald's hamburger signs saying 
that they were benefiting from this program, and we were appropriating 
money that was being used by huge corporations to increase their sales. 
All the program was ever designed to do was to combat unfair trade 
practices overseas in foreign markets where we were trying to compete 
for our share of the market in the sale of agriculture commodities and 
food products. We were giving the Department of Agriculture money. It 
was called the Targeted Export Assistance Program first. Then it was 
the Market Promotion Program. Now it is the Market Access Program. We 
can't even get the right name so that it is acceptable. So the Senator 
continues to make changes.
  I think we ought to just say this program is working. It is 
increasing sales of U.S. farm-produced commodities in overseas markets. 
There is a limited amount of money available. It is prescribed by law.
  Everyone here had a chance to debate the farm bill. We had a chance 
to debate all of the limiting language that any Senator wanted to 
offer. And that was done. It is over with. It is not being abused 
anymore, if it ever was. It is not being subjected to any kind of abuse 
that I know anything about.

  So my suggestion to the Senate is to table this amendment and get on 
with the consideration of the rest of the bill. It is not necessary to 
adopt it to seek any reforms that need to be made.
  So I am hoping the Senate will reject the amendment and vote for the 
motion to table.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

[[Page S7927]]

  Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself another 4 minutes, and I would certainly 
provide whatever time the distinguished ranking member would like to 
speak if he chooses to comment on this.
  Madam President, let me just point out that this program ought to be 
eliminated. The Senate has been resistant. But the Senate has gone on 
record twice as having said the program ought to be limited to $70 
million. The present level would be $90 million.
  So this amendment seeks to in effect do what the Senate twice has 
gone on record as trying to accomplish.
  Second, my colleagues will recall that the other part of the 
amendment that we offered was passed by a vote of 59 to 31, which, I 
believe, was to eliminate money going to foreign companies.
  The bureaucracy is extraordinarily creative and ingenious. So 
companies that have historically since the advent of this program back 
in the 1980's were designated as foreign companies miraculously under a 
new definition after the Congress--this is the current law--went on 
record as saying not to allow this money to go to foreign companies. 
They have redefined ``foreign companies'' as ``nonforeign'' or 
``domestic companies'' for purposes of this legislation.
  So one of the reforms that we thought that we got enacted in the last 
Congress--that is, to eliminate the flow of money to companies like 
this to Saudi Arabia, to France, to the Netherlands, to Germany, to 
Canada, the United Kingdom, and other companies. We thought we had 
closed that door. But the Foreign Agriculture Service had redefined 
what constitutes a foreign company.
  So what this amendment tries to do is to reinstate the intent of the 
Senate as passed by an overwhelming margin, and is currently the law to 
prohibit the flow of money in this program, the taxpayer dollars to 
foreign companies.
  I hope my colleagues will be supportive of this amendment as they 
have on two previous occasions.
  I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I know of no other Senators who are 
seeking recognition on this issue.
  Might I inquire how much time remains under the order on the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 10 minutes, 
and the Senator from Nevada has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I yield myself the additional 10 
minutes.
  I was just handed a chart that shows how much money comparatively is 
being spent on export or market promotion by the European Union as 
compared with how much we are spending in the United States of taxpayer 
funds for the same purpose.
  I do not have one of these big charts on an easel, and I don't know 
if everybody can see this, but this big colored part of the chart here 
is how much is spent by the European Union, and it is $10.11 billion. 
This is this year. You cannot see anything on the other side except 
white, but if you look very, very carefully, you can see just a little 
bit of a line here and it is $0.15 billion. And the Senator is trying 
to cut that further.
  Now, think about it. The European Union is spending more money 
promoting the sale of wine than we are spending as a nation in our 
Federal programs on all of our United States-produced commodities and 
foodstuffs that are being sold in the overseas markets. Think about it. 
And this program is available only to trade associations, cooperatives 
and small businesses. Think about it.
  Now, this is getting ridiculous. We have changed this program every 
time it has come up, or changes have been attempted every time it has 
come up. It has been reformed and modified and refocused. We are trying 
to give the Department of Agriculture some funds to use in situations 
where our exporters are being denied access to markets or are being 
unfairly treated in some way by barriers that are being erected to 
prevent the sale of United States-produced agriculture foodstuffs and 
commodities.
  Whose side are we on, for goodness sakes? Think about this. We are 
being asked to cut the program more and to limit it more so it is tied 
down tighter than you can imagine.
  Finally, I think those who ask for access to these funds, these 
market access program funds are going to finally give up. It is going 
to be so much red-tape, so many new rules and regulations, that it is 
going to take a whole firm of lawyers to figure out how to get some of 
these funds to use if you need them.
  I am hoping that the Senate will say OK, enough is enough. In the 
farm bill of last year--year before last--language was used to try to 
define as carefully as could be the authority for using these funds, 
and the amount of money was not given any discretion at all in terms of 
the appropriations process. It was directed in the farm bill that $90 
million be spent or made available to the Department of Agriculture to 
spend under these tightly constricted and restrained definitions. Now 
the Senator is saying the appropriations bill, because it does not 
limit the expenditure of these funds that are directed, ought to be 
amended so that it will, and that there ought to be further limitations 
on the spending. I say I think enough is enough. We have reformed the 
program.
  There is a coalition of exporters that has written me a letter again 
saying that the Senate, they understand, may have to consider another 
amendment to further reduce or eliminate funding for the Market Access 
Program. A similar amendment was defeated last year, they point out in 
this letter. The program has been substantially reformed and reduced; 
it is targeted toward farmer-owned cooperatives, small businesses and 
trade associations; it is administered on a cost-share basis with 
farmers and ranchers and other participants; they are required to 
contribute as much as 50 percent toward the program costs; on and on 
and on.
  Here is a list of all of those who are a part of this coalition, 
double-spaced columns here, a whole page of U.S. agriculture producers 
and growers trying to sell our share in the world market. Exports have 
become so important to U.S. agriculture. There are markets out there 
that are growing and expanding. There are opportunities for us. They 
create jobs here in the United States for our U.S. citizens. Vote for 
America for a change. Vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. My friend and colleague from Mississippi propounded, I 
think, a very fair question. Whose side are you on? Those who support 
the Bryan amendment are on the side of the American taxpayer. I believe 
that whether you come from a farm State or nonfarm State, when you are 
told that your hard-earned tax dollars go to foreign companies, that is 
offensive. I think it is not only offensive, it is without 
justification.
  How can we call upon the American people, in effect, to subsidize 
foreign companies with their own tax dollars. It is my view that this 
program is corporate welfare. It is also my view that this program 
ought to be eliminated. But that is not the issue today. The issue 
today is whether you favor cutting off money, taxpayer dollars, to 
foreign companies such as these that are illustrated here from Saudi 
Arabia, from France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. We tried to 
do that. We tried to do that. But the bureaucrats have come up with 
some convoluted definition of what constitutes a foreign company that 
now makes it possible for foreign companies to receive these moneys 
notwithstanding the overwhelming vote of the Senate to express its 
displeasure.
  I could not resist a comment when my friend from Mississippi talked 
about the reforms that have taken place. This is a program that is in 
need of elimination. But I will say to you that the General Accounting 
Office as recently as March of this year had this to say about this 
Market Access Program, and I quote:

       Adequate assurance does not exist to demonstrate that 
     Market Access Program funds are supporting additional 
     promotional activities rather than simply replacing company 
     industry funds.

  So, in effect, what is occurring here is a big scam, and the American 
taxpayer is the victim. Companies that receive these subsidies simply 
reduce the amount of money of their own corporate funds for their 
advertising budget and have it supplemented at the expense of the 
taxpayer. That neither encourages nor helps agricultural exports

[[Page S7928]]

nor helps American agriculture, but it certainly dips deep into the 
taxpayer pocket, as it has for many, many years.
  This is the time to eliminate one of the fundamental abuses. That is 
money going to foreign companies. We thought we had done that in the 
last Congress. This definition in this amendment tightens that loophole 
that apparently the bureaucrats have been able to find and would put a 
cap which the Senate has previously voted on at $70 million.
  I will yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased once again to join with my 
friend, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, as a cosponsor of his 
amendment to reduce funding for the Market Access Program [MAP]. I urge 
my colleagues to support this effort to scale back funding for the 
Market Access Program by $20 million for fiscal year 1998.
  I would like to eliminate totally the Market Access Program, formerly 
known as the Market Promotion Program. This is a subsidy program which 
has been roundly criticized by research institutes across the political 
and economic spectrum--the National Taxpayers' Union, the Progressive 
Policy Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Cato 
Institute, and others.
  The MAP Program makes possible some of the most obvious cases of 
corporate welfare to which we can point in the Federal budget today. 
But, as my friend from Nevada knows, we have tried year after year to 
terminate this program which has funneled more than $1 billion of 
taxpayer money into the advertising budgets of some major American 
corporations. Unfortunately, our efforts to eliminate this program have 
been unsuccessful, but we have proscribed some of the more egregious 
uses of MAP funds.
  For example, American taxpayers no longer will be subsidizing the 
advertising expenses of the mink industry to promote fashion shows 
abroad. My amendment to the MAP passed the Senate last year and I am 
pleased that the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Agriculture Subcommittee have agreed to continue this prohibition 
another year. In addition, last year, the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, and Senator Bryan successfully led the fight 
to limit this program to small businesses and agricultural co-
operatives. That was another giant step in the right direction--
taxpayers should not be subsidizing the foreign advertising accounts of 
McDonald's, Gallo Wines, M&Ms, Tyson's and all the other corporate 
giants that have received MAP funds in the past.
  American taxpayers also should not be asked to subsidize foreign 
firms. And this program has benefited foreign companies. From 1986-
1993, $92 million of MPP funds went to foreign-based firms. Senator 
Bryan successfully passed an amendment that will keep MAP funds from 
going to foreign corporations. Yet, as we heard while he described his 
amendment today, more than 40 foreign companies received funding from 
the MAP last year. This is outrageous, and makes obvious the necessity 
for the distinguished Senator's amendment.
  At a time when we are asked to cut back on education funding, on 
Medicare, on environmental programs, how can we justify paying the 
advertising expenses of foreign agricultural companies?
  Our work to eliminate corporate welfare from this program certainly 
is not finished. As long as foreign-owned companies with subsidiaries 
in the United States are still able to receive subsidies to advertise 
their products in their own countries, I will be back in this Chamber 
arguing against this program. I am hopeful that the Senate will pass 
this amendment today, because it will take us a long way toward the 
goal of removing the nonsensical from this program by eliminating 
funding for foreign-owned subsidiaries and for large corporations.
  I think most Americans are not even aware that this kind of egregious 
subsidy is taking place, and when I discuss this program with people in 
my state, they express astonishment and dismay. They know it is 
inappropriate and unnecessary, and measured against the other choices 
we are making here, it is plainly and simply wrong.
  I commend my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Bryan, for 
his continuing leadership fighting inappropriate Federal subsidies, and 
the MAP in particular. He and I have joined forces in this effort on so 
many occasions, fighting against the wool and mohair subsidy, fighting 
the mink subsidy, fighting wasteful subsidies in the MAP Program. I 
urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment to reduce funding for 
the Market Access Program.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I urge that the amendment be defeated. 
I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a copy of 
a letter to me from the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports 
that I referred to in my remarks.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              Coalition to Promote


                                    U.S. Agricultural Exports,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1997.
       Dear Senator: It is our understanding the Senate may 
     consider the FY 1998 agriculture appropriations bill as early 
     as today. Accordingly, we want to take this opportunity to 
     urge your strong opposition to any amendment which may 
     further reduce or eliminate funding for USDA's Market Access 
     Program (MAP). A similar amendment was defeated last year by 
     a 55-42 vote.
       MAP has been substantially reformed and refocused. It is 
     now specifically targeted towards farmer-owned cooperatives, 
     small businesses and trade associations. Further, it is 
     administered on a cost-share basis with farmers and ranchers, 
     and other participants, required to contribute as much as 50 
     percent or more toward the program's cost. In addition to 
     encouraging U.S. agricultural exports, it has helped create 
     and maintain needed jobs throughout the economy. Over one 
     million Americans have jobs which depend on U.S. agricultural 
     exports.
       The program is also a key part of the new 7-year farm bill 
     (FAIR ACT of 1996), which gradually reduces direct income 
     support to farmers over 7 years and eliminates acreage 
     reduction programs, while providing greater planting 
     flexibility. As a result, farm income is more dependent than 
     ever on maintaining and expanding exports, which now account 
     for as much as one-third or more of domestic production. The 
     export market, however, continues to be extremely competitive 
     with the European Union and other countries heavily 
     outspending the U.S. when it comes to market development and 
     promotion efforts. Recently, the European Union announced a 
     major new initiative aimed at Japan--the largest single 
     market for U.S. agriculture. This underscores the continued 
     need for MAP and similar programs.
       Enclosed for your use are additional fact sheets, including 
     a table highlighting the value of agricultural exports and 
     number of export-related jobs by state.
       Again, we appreciate your leadership and support on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,

                       Coalition Membership--1997

     Ag Processing, Inc.
     Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
     American Farm Bureau Federation
     American Forest & Paper Association
     American Hardwood Export Council
     American Meat Institute
     American Plywood Association
     American Seed Trade Association
     American Sheep Industry Association
     American Soybean Association
     Blue Diamond Growers
     California Agricultural Export Council
     California Canning Peach Association
     California Kiwifruit Commission
     California Pistachio Commission
     California Prune Board
     California Table Grape Commission
     California Tomato Board
     California Walnut Commission
     Cherry Marketing Institute, Inc.
     Chocolate Manufacturers Association
     CoBank
     Diamond Walnut Growers
     Eastern Agricultural and Food Export Council Corp.
     Farmland Industries
     Florida Citrus Mutual
     Florida Citrus Packers
     Florida Department of Citrus
     Ginseng Board of Wisconsin
     Hop Growers of America
     International American Supermarkets Corp.
     International Dairy Foods Association
     Kentucky Distillers Association
     Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council
     National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
     National Cattlemen's Beef Association
     National Confectioners Association
     National Corn Growers Association
     National Cotton Council
     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
     National Dry Bean Council
     National Grange
     National Hay Association
     National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.
     National Milk Producers Federation
     National Peanut Council of America
     National Pork Producers Council
     National Potato Council
     National Renderers Association

[[Page S7929]]

     National Sunflower Association
     NORPAC Foods, Inc.
     Northwest Horticultural Council
     Pet Food Institute
     Produce Marketing Association
     Protein Grain Products International
     Sioux Honey Association
     Southern Forest Products Association
     Southern U.S. Trade Association
     Sun-Diamond Growers of California
     Sun Maid Raisin Growers of California
     Sunkist Growers
     Sunsweet Prune Growers
     The Catfish Institute
     The Farm Credit Council
     The Popcorn Institute
     Tree Fruit Reserve
     Tree Top, Inc.
     Tri Valley Growers
     United Egg Association
     United Egg Producers
     United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association
     USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council
     USA Poultry & Egg Export Council
     USA Rice Federation
     U.S. Apple Association
     U.S. Feed Grains Council
     U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.
     U.S. Meat Export Federation
     U.S. Wheat Associates
     Vinifera Wine Growers Association
     Vodka Producers of America
     Washington Apple Commission
     Western Pistachio Association
     Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association
     Wine Institute

  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield back the remainder of my time. I move to table 
the Bryan 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.


                           Amendment No. 968

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the motion 
to table the Harkin amendment. There is 5 minutes of debate remaining.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, am I correct that 5 minutes is now running 
on the debate on the Harkin amendment with 2\1/2\ minutes equally 
divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not yet running.
  Mr. FORD. May I be recognized since there is no pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. And I might get a few more minutes here.
  The motion to table the Harkin amendment is significant because the 
Senator from Iowa talked about the goals; there were no goals under the 
SAMHSA amendment or what we refer to as the Synar amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my neighbor. I have in my hand the explanation and 
rationale for the budget request of FDA as it relates to tobacco. There 
is not a goal in here. There is not a goal in here. So if SAMHSA does 
not have a goal, then FDA does not have one. So if the teeth are not in 
the SAMHSA amendment, there are no teeth in the FDA amendment that the 
Senator from Iowa said there were.

  So it is a little bit confusing to me for him to say that FDA has a 
goal and they have teeth, and yet when you look at the explanation of 
the program, the rationale for the budget request, there is no goal in 
here, none whatsoever. None whatsoever. We hear a lot about health, but 
the enforcement is there. The enforcement under SAMHSA is there. The 
ability to take from the States is there--that is enforcement--to carry 
out and comply with the law.
  Now, this is double jeopardy. We have SAMHSA on one side telling the 
States what to do. They passed a law. Now we are trying to give FDA $34 
million, taken directly from the farmers' pocket--whether you want to 
agree with that or not--and say FDA is going to get involved, also. It 
just does not seem fair. Then the $34 million that we have, that the 
Senator is asking for, is the budget request of the administration 
prior to the court case which threw out several of these items and, 
therefore, $34 million would not be needed anyhow.
  So, I say to my colleagues, tobacco is something that everybody wants 
to shoot at. But what we forget about is the farmer. He is sitting 
there. He does not set a price on anything. What will you give me? So 
they say the manufacturers will pay all of it. They just reduce the 
price of tobacco, and the farmer pays for it. He pays for the 
warehouse; he pays for the grading; he pays the deficit reduction 
charge. All these are paid by the farmer before he gets the check. So 
now we find ourselves saying FDA has rules to go by. There are no 
rules. The Senator from Iowa gave me this piece of paper, and there are 
no criteria in here that say the States have to do anything, if they 
want to give them money to enforce it. Well, it is already there, and 
the States have already passed the laws.
  So, Madam President, I will yield the floor and I still have the 
opportunity to get 2\1/2\ minutes, I understand. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 5 minutes equally divided on the 
Harkin amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I understand we have 2\1/2\ minutes. Is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just listened to my friend from Kentucky--and he is my 
friend, I mean that in all sincerity--talking about this amendment not 
being fair. Madam President, what is not fair is this: Kids all over 
America walking into gas stations, small retail outlets, not being 
asked to show an ID, buying cigarettes and getting hooked, getting 
hooked on tobacco. That is what is not fair. That is what is not fair, 
and that is what this amendment seeks to prevent.
  The FDA promulgated a rule. The tobacco companies took them to court. 
The court in Greensboro, NC, upheld that part of the FDA rule that says 
FDA can set a minimum age for tobacco purchases and require that retail 
establishments have to card anyone who appears to be under 27. The 
Court said FDA can promulgate that rule. The rule is in place.
  What our amendment does is provide some money to the States and local 
jurisdictions to enforce the rules and also money to help the private 
establishments meet their obligations not to sell to minors and to have 
an ID check on young people so they do not buy tobacco when they are 
under the age of 18. That is what is fair. States need the funds.
  This funding for FDA's youth tobacco initiative is supported by 33 
attorneys general from around the country who have been part of this 
tobacco settlement that they are working on. The attorney general of 
Mississippi, Mike Moore, wrote me a letter supporting this amendment 
saying it would not interfere or conflict with the proposed tobacco 
settlement.
  Lastly, this offset is totally within the jurisdiction of the 
Agriculture Committee. It is supported by both Chairman Lugar and by 
me, the ranking member. This amendment will not go to the Ways and 
Means Committee. It is under Agriculture's jurisdiction. It was in the 
1990 reconciliation bill and it is today.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Harkins's 
amendment to increase the tobacco deficit-reduction assessment and 
devote the proceeds to enforcement of the Food and Drug 
Administration's rules to deter underage smoking.
  Senator Harkin has discussed this amendment with me and I find it 
fully consistent with my own views on the urgency of preventing 
smoking. The increased assessment will still contribute to future 
deficit reduction because it will assist us in preventing smoking. When 
a young person makes the mistake of beginning to smoke, serious health 
risks are created for the individual. The problems do not end here, 
however. A decision to smoke is also a decision to increase potential 
future health care costs. Many of these costs are borne by the Federal 
and State governments. People who do not begin smoking will be less a 
burden on the Nation's health care system and on the Nation's treasury.
  The primary benefit of the amendment, however, will be on the lives 
of individual young people. If they do not begin smoking in youth, they 
are unlikely to start once they attain greater maturity. Preventing 
smoking at an especially vulnerable age is a national priority and I 
commend Senator Harkin for advancing it in this amendment.

[[Page S7930]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Rhode Island, and thank him for his support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I stand in strong support of the Harkin 
amendment. We know today 90 percent of the adults who are smoking 
started when they were children. We know, if current trends continue, 5 
million kids today under 18 years old will die because of smoking 
related diseases. We know all this, yet we are doing nothing effective 
to stop the use of tobacco products by children under 18 years of age.
  The Harkin amendment would actually provide resources to ensure that 
the FDA regulations are enforced. That, to me, is the most critical 
test. I believe we should support this amendment wholeheartedly.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. There are 
2\1/2\ minutes available on the other side.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have made this motion to table. We 
have an extraordinary procedure, having the right to debate before it 
is voted upon, but, in fairness, I thought that should be the case.
  Let me state to the Chair and the Senate, we have checked with the 
Ways and Means Committee. The tax counsel for that committee has 
informed my staff that this provision will require a review by the Ways 
and Means Committee. What it is, it is a revenue-raising measure. This 
is an appropriations bill, a bill to spend money. It is not a bill for 
legislation. Until just a couple of years ago, we had a point of order 
about legislation on appropriations bills. That is no longer a valid 
technique for us to control the bill. The only way we can control a 
bill and keep amendments like this off is to have a motion to table.
  I urge the Senate to come back to our senses concerning legislation 
on appropriations bills, particularly legislation that raises money. 
The House is the place where revenue-raising measures start, under the 
Constitution. They have every right to take this bill to their 
committee. I do not disagree with the purpose that the Senator from 
Iowa seeks to fulfill with this money. But if he wants to do it, he 
should go to the legislative committees and have the tax committees 
raise the money, and then we will help him spend it. Our job is to 
spend money, not to raise money.
  This is a wrong provision on this bill. It is going to delay. We are 
not through tonight. I don't think we are through with this amendment 
unless we table it.
  Beyond that, if it passes, it is going to go over and this bill will 
go to the Ways and Means Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee 
will send it back to the Senate. That is no way to handle 
appropriations bills.
  I have tried my best as Appropriations Committee chairman to move 
these bills, to move them through, to be absolutely fair in 
consideration of provisions that could be in an appropriations bill. 
The Senator has part of his amendment which provides money to spend to 
FDA. We don't have that money. So what he does, he also puts in a 
provision to raise revenue. We do not have that right in an 
appropriations bill. The Senate doesn't have that right. Revenue-
raising measures must start in the House of Representatives.
  I urge the Senate to read the Constitution, read it again, and table 
this amendment. Because that is the only way to handle amendments like 
this, is to table them, now, under our procedure. I believe we should 
not vote on this in a substantive way. We should table it and leave it 
to the tax-raising committees to raise the revenue. We should handle 
spending.
  Has my time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 968) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 970

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to lay on the table the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Nevada, amendment No. 970. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Coats
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Biden
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 970) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have another unanimous-consent request we 
would like to make on the amendments that are pending and how we can 
get to a conclusion. Then we can advise the Members that there would be 
no more votes tonight if we can get this agreement worked out. I think 
we have talked to all the interested Senators, and we should get this 
agreed to.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only remaining 
amendments in order and they be limited to relevant second-degrees and 
votes ordered with respect to those amendments be stacked to occur 
beginning at 10 a.m. on Thursday, with 2 minutes for debate between 
each stacked vote, equally divided. Those amendments are

[[Page S7931]]

as follows and subject to time restraints where noted: Grams, dairy 
compact amendment; Wellstone, school breakfast, 1 hour equally divided; 
a managers' amendment; the Bingaman amendment with regard to CRP; the 
Robb amendment with regard to farmers' civil rights; and the Johnson 
amendment regarding livestock packers.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the 
above-listed amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and, if 
the Senate has received H.R. 2160, the Senate proceed to the House 
companion bill, all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of 
S. 1033, as amended, be inserted, and the bill be advanced to third 
reading, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, and following the passage the Senate insist on its 
amendment and request a conference with the House, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, two 
questions of the majority leader. When we had this discussion about how 
to proceed, I had asked for 10 minutes to be equally divided before the 
vote because I think the amendment is an important one. Colleagues will 
not be here tonight.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. That was the 
agreement. So we need to modify the agreement that there would be 10 
minutes equally divided before the Wellstone amendment would be voted 
on tomorrow morning.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader.
  The second question was, my understanding is I will proceed next, or 
is there----
  Mr. LOTT. The request we have here is that the Grams amendment would 
go first, because I think we have that worked out where it will be just 
a very brief period of time, and we would go right to your amendment 
after that with a time limit of 1 hour equally divided.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, the Grams amendment has 
been worked out? We are not going to have a long time on that; is that 
correct? Is that what you are saying?
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I have been waiting all 
day to make a brief statement of 3 or 4 minutes. I would like to have 
the opportunity.
  Mr. LOTT. Is it regarding the legislation?
  Mr. McCAIN. Regarding the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Did the Senator from Minnesota have a question that I did 
not respond to?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No. I thank the leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his cooperation and 
his understanding that these things are very difficult and sometimes we 
all get a little carried away in our comments. I appreciate his 
cooperation on this. He will have time to make his case and he will 
have 10 minutes in the morning. I thank him for his cooperation.
  Mr. President, in furtherance of this reservation, Mr. President, I--
how long does the Senator need?
  Mr. McCAIN. Four minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. I also ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona 
have 4 minutes before we begin on the amendments we have lined up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I might ask 
the majority leader, I understand from in the UC request that, after 
all these amendments are disposed of, we go to the third reading of the 
bill, and that there would be a vote on final passage.
  Mr. LOTT. That's right.
  Mr. HARKIN. After that, the UC also says that the House bill would 
then come in and be substituted for the Senate bill and then proceed to 
a third reading of the House bill at that point in time. However, it is 
my understanding that when the House bill is substituted for the Senate 
bill, it is also open for amendment at that point in time; is that not 
correct?
  Mr. LOTT. This is the normal language that we use in this type of 
consent, getting the final passage. It is the normal procedure and the 
normal language. I guess, in theory, it is subject to amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I would like to inform the distinguished majority 
leader that when this point happens, I intend to offer an amendment on 
the House bill. It would be subject to the Senate bill at that point in 
time.
  Mr. LOTT. It would be what? Subject to what?
  Mr. HARKIN. When the House bill takes the place of the Senate bill, 
when you strike all after the enacting clause and put in the House 
bill, at that point the House bill is then open for amendment. It is my 
intention to offer an amendment to the House bill at that point in 
time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while the leaders are discussing this 
issue, I will make my brief statement at this time so that we can 
proceed with the business of the Senate.
  Mr. President, once again, the hard work of Chairman Cochran and 
Senator Bumpers is readily apparent in this bill and report. I 
congratulate them for their efforts.
  This is the eighth appropriations bill to come before the Senate in 
these 2 weeks. And I must say that this bill and report, so far, take 
the cake for earmarks and set-asides for Members' special interests.
  Most of these earmarks are in the report language and do not, 
therefore, have the full force of law. But I have no doubt that the 
Department of Agriculture will feel compelled to spend the funds 
appropriated to them in accordance with these earmarks.
  These earmarks are the usual collection of add-ons for universities 
and laboratories, prohibitions on closing facilities or cutting 
personnel levels, special exemptions for certain areas, and the like. 
There is little on this list that would surprise any of my colleagues.
  There is, however, a new type of earmark that I do not recall seeing 
in other appropriations bills. I am referring to the practice of 
earmarking funds to provide additional personnel at specific locations. 
For example, in the report:
  $250,000 is earmarked for a hydrologist to work for the Agricultural 
Research Service on south Florida Everglades restoration;
  $500,000 is earmarked for additional scientists to do research on 
parasitic mites and Africanized honeybees at the Bee Laboratory in 
Texas;
  Language specifies funding at fiscal year 1997 levels for the peanut 
research unit of the Agricultural Research Service in Oklahoma to 
retain two scientists at the facility;
  Language specifies funding at fiscal year 1997 levels to maintain the 
potato breeder and small grains geneticist positions at the 
Agricultural Research Service facility in Aberdeen, ID--the report 
notes that the current potato breeder is getting ready to retire;
  An additional $250,000 is earmarked for an animal physiologist 
position at the Fort Keough Laboratory in Montana;
  $1.05 million is added for additional staffing at the Rice Germplasm 
Laboratory in Arkansas;
  $250,000 is added for additional scientific staffing at the Small 
Fruits Research Laboratory in Mississippi;
  $250,000 is added to establish a small grains pathologist research 
position for the Agricultural Research Service in Raleigh, NC;
  Language acknowledges the importance of the horticulturist position 
specializing in grape production at the Agricultural Research Service 
station in Prosser, WA;
  $200,000 is added for 21 additional full-time inspectors at 
agriculture quarantine inspection facilities at Hawaii's airports;
  $200,000 is added for the cattle tick inspection program to ensure 
current staffing levels are maintained along the border with Mexico; 
and
  Language recommends continued staffing and operations at the 
cooperative services office in Hilo, HI.

[[Page S7932]]

  Mr. President, I am amazed again. We have found a new way of 
earmarking. I congratulate the appropriators for doing so. I have never 
before seen earmarking funds for the hiring of a specialist at a 
particular job. So I want to again say we have broken a new frontier 
here and one that I am sure will be emulated by others in the 
appropriations bills to come.
  Mr. President, I won't delay the Senate further. I ask unanimous 
consent that a listing of the provisions that I find objectionable in 
the agriculture appropriations bill be printed in the Record at this 
time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Objectionable Provisions in S. 1033 Fiscal Year 1998 Agriculture 
                          Appropriations Bill


                             Bill Language

       $24.5 million earmarked for water and waste disposal 
     systems for the Colonias along the U.S.-Mexico border.
       $15 million for water systems for rural and native villages 
     in Alaska.
       Section 725 exempts the Martin Luther King area of Pawley's 
     Island, South Carolina, from the population eligibility 
     ceiling for housing loans and grants.
       Section 726 prohibits closing or relocating the FDA 
     Division of Drug Analysis in St. Louis, Missouri, or closing 
     or consolidating FDA's laboratory in Baltimore, Maryland.


                            Report Language

       Agricultural Research Service:
       Earmarks and directive language for research programs--
     $250,000 for apple-specific E. coli research at the Eastern 
     Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania.
       $250,000 for research at the ARS Pasture Center in Logan, 
     Utah.
       $500,000 for fusarium head blight research at the Cereal 
     Rust Laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota.
       $500,000 for research on karnal bunt at Manhattan, Kansas.
       $1.25 million for Everglades Initiative, of which $1 
     million is for research on biocontrol of melaleuca and other 
     exotic pests at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and $250,000 is for 
     a hydrologist to work on south Florida Everglades 
     restoration.
       $1 million each for Texas and Arkansas entities to perform 
     dietary research, and $250,000 for each of five other centers 
     proposing to do dietary research.
       $250,000 each for laboratories in Colorado, Maryland, and 
     California to do critical plant genetics research.
       $50,000 each to 4 entities in Hawaii, California, and 
     Oregon for clonal repositories and introduction stations.
       Additional earmarks for clonal repositories and 
     introduction stations at College Station, Texas ($100,000), 
     Ames, Iowa ($200,000), and Pullman, Washington ($250,000).
       Continues funding for ARS laboratories and worksites in 
     North Dakota, Washington, Maine, and California which had 
     been proposed for closure.
       Increase of $250,000 for Appalachian Soil and Water 
     Conservation Laboratory.
       $750,000 for ARS to assist Alaska in support of arctic 
     germplasm.
       $250,000 to initiate a program for the National Center for 
     Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture at the Interior Department's 
     Leetown Science Center, where the national aquaculture center 
     will be collocated.
       $250,000 for high-yield cotton germplasm research at 
     Stoneville, Mississippi.
       $198,000 for center of excellence in endophyte/grass 
     research to be operated cooperatively by the University of 
     Missouri and the University of Arkansas.
       $250,000 to support research on infectious diseases in 
     warmwater fish at the Fish Disease and Parasite Research 
     Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama.
       $500,000 increase for the National Aquaculture Research 
     Center in Arkansas.
       4 separate earmarks for the Hawaii Institute of Tropical 
     Agriculture and Human Resources--$298,000 to develop a 
     program to control the papaya ringspot virus; another 
     $298,000 to establish nematode resistance in commercial 
     pineapple cultivars; $275,100 to develop efficacious and 
     nontoxic methods to control tephritid fruit flies; and 
     funding at FY 1997 levels for environmentally safe methods of 
     controlling pests prominent in small scale farms in tropical 
     and subtropical agricultural systems.
       $250,000 for grain legume genetics research at Washington 
     State University.
       $950,000 for Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (formerly 
     called the Hawaii Sugar Planters' Association Experiment 
     Station) to maintain competitiveness of U.S. sugarcane 
     producers.
       $500,000 increase for additional scientists to do research 
     on parasitic mites and Africanized honeybees at the ARS Bee 
     Laboratory in Weslaco, Texas.
       $388,000 to continue hops research in the Pacific 
     Northwest.
       $500,000 for integrated crop and livestock production 
     systems research at ARS Dairy Forage Center in Wisconsin.
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for kenaf research and product 
     development efforts at Mississippi State University.
       $14.58 million for methyl bromide replacement research, 
     directed to ``facilities and universities that have expertise 
     or ongoing programs in this area.''
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for the National Center for 
     Agricultural Law Research and Information at the Leflar 
     School of Law in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for the National Sedimentation 
     Laboratory.
       $500,000 increase for the National Warmwater Aquaculture 
     Research Center in Mississippi.
       $1 million increase for University of Mississippi 
     pharmaceutical research.
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for Northwest Nursery Crops 
     Research Center in Oregon.
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for two scientists for the peanut 
     research unit in Oklahoma
       Funding for FY 1997 levels for pear thrip control research 
     at University of Vermont
       Funding at FY 1997 level to maintain the potato breeder 
     position at Aberdeen, Idaho, after the current person retires
       Numerous earmarks at the FY 1997 funding levels for 
     continued research on a variety of projects at the following 
     locations [page 26-27 of report]:
       $370,700 for Albany, California
       $245,700 for Fresno/Parlier, California
       $144,100 for Gainsville, Florida
       $1.6 million for Hilo, Hawaii
       $160,700 for Aberdeen, Idaho
       $1.2 million for Peoria, Illinois
       $350 million for Ames, Iowa
       $250,000 for Manhattan, Kansas
       $400,000 for New Orleans, Louisiana
       $1.5 million for Beltsville, Maryland
       $393,000 for East Lansing, Michigan
       $147,000 for St. Paul, Minnesota
       $491,500 for Stoneville, Mississippi
       $393,200 for Columbia, Missouri
       $208,400 for Clay Center, Nebraska
       $143,100 for Lincoln, Nebraska
       $50,000 for Ithaca, New York
       $877,200 for Raleigh, North Carolina
       $210,100 for Wooster, Ohio
       $150,000 for Stillwater, Oklahoma
       $930,800 for Corvallis, Oregon
       $691,500 for Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
       $350,000 for Pullman, Washington
       $919,800 for Washington, D.C.
       $300,000 increase for Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory 
     in Georgia
       $250,000 increase for an animal physiologist position at 
     the Fort Keough Laboratory in Montana
       $1.05 million increase for additional staffing at the Rice 
     Germplasm Laboratory in Arkansas
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for Geisinger Health Systems 
     Geriatric Nutrition Center in Pennsylvania to develop 
     programs to assist the rural elderly population in nutrition
       $250,000 increase for additional scientific staffing at 
     Small Fruits Research Laboratory in Mississippi
       Funding at FY 1997 level to maintain small grains 
     geneticist position at Aberdeen, Idaho, ARS station
       $250,000 increase to establish a small grains pathologist 
     research position in Raleigh, North Carolina
       At least $180,000 to continue program at National Center 
     for Physical Acoustics to develop automated methods of 
     monitoring pest populations
       $144,100 for subterranean termite research in Hawaii
       $600,000 for sugarcane biotechnology research at Southern 
     Regional Research Center in Louisiana, with direction to 
     collaborate with American Sugar Cane League to coordinate 
     research
       $1.6 million for aquaculture productivity research and 
     requirements and sources of nutrients for marine shrimp 
     projects in Hawaii


               Earmarks for unrequested building projects

       $7.9 million for two projects in Mississippi (planning and 
     design for a Biocontrol and Insect Rearing Laboratory in 
     Stoneville, and National Center for Natural Products in 
     Oxford)
       $606,000 for a pest quarantine and integrated pest 
     management facility in Montana
       $5 million for Human Nutrition Research Center in North 
     Dakota
       $4.8 million for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in South 
     Carolina
       $600,000 for a Poisonous Plant Laboratory in Utah
       $6 million for a National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
     Aquaculture in West Virginia


                          Supportive language

       Notes importance of barley stripe rust research at Pullman, 
     Washington, laboratory
       Impressed with results of work at the Midsouth research 
     unit on biological controls of cotton insect pests
       Supports expansion of catfish research at Mississippi 
     Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology
       Urges ARS to continue cotton textile processing research at 
     New Orleans, Louisiana
       Expects ARS to provide adequate funding for ginning 
     research at laboratories in New Mexico, Mississippi, and 
     Texas
       Acknowledges the importance of the horticulturist position 
     specializing in grape production at the ARS station in 
     Prosser, Washington, and urges that more resources be placed 
     on grape production research
       Urges ARS to continue needed research for meadowfoam at 
     Oregon State University and the ARS facility at Peoria, 
     Illinois
       Urges continued funding for Poisonous Plant Laboratory at 
     Logan, Utah
       Urges continued research at the Idaho ARS station on potato 
     late blight
       Expects ARS to continue to support the South Central Family 
     Farm Research Center in Arkansas

[[Page S7933]]

       Expects no less than FY 1997 funding level for agroforestry 
     research at the University of Missouri
       Expects funding at FY 1997 levels for research in Iowa and 
     Mississippi on soybean production and processing
       Expects ARS to provide increased emphasis on 
     viticulture research for that U.S. can remain competitive 
     in the international marketplace for wine
       Should continue and expand research at the Midsouth 
     Research Center on water quality and pesticide application
       Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
     Service:


                                Earmarks

       $47.5 million for 121 special research grants:
       --Only $10 million of this amount was requested for 7 
     projects, and the committee eliminated funding for one 
     requested project and reduced funding for another requested 
     project.
       --The entire $47.5 million is earmarked for particular 
     states.
       $7.7 million for unrequested administrative costs in 
     connection with 13 research programs in specific states 
     [pages 33-37 of report], including:
       --$200,000 for the Center for Human Nutrition in Baltimore, 
     Maryland
       --$844,000 for the Geographic Information System program in 
     Georgia, Chesapeake Bay, Arkansas, North Dakota, Washington, 
     and Wisconsin
       --$200,000 for the mariculture program at University of 
     North Carolina at Wilmington
       $5.8 million for 10 unrequested special grants for 
     extension activities in specific states [page 40 of report]
       $400,000 of pest management funds for potato late blight 
     activities in Maine
       $2.6 million for unrequested rural health programs in 
     Mississippi and Louisiana
       Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:


                    Earmarks and directive language

       $200,000 increase for 21 additional full-time inspectors at 
     agriculture quarantine inspection facilities in Hawaii's 
     airports
       $200,000 increase in the cattle tick inspection program to 
     ensure current staffing levels for U.S.-Mexico border control
       Directs that vacancies at Gulfport APHIS office be filled 
     once the Southeast Regional Office is transferred to the 
     eastern hub
       Funding at FY 1997 levels to continue cattail management 
     and blackbird control efforts in North and South Dakota and 
     Louisiana
       $150,000 increase for the beaver damage control assistance 
     program for the Delta National Forest and other areas in 
     Mississippi
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for Hawaii Agriculture Research 
     Center for research into rodent control in sugarcane and 
     macadamia nut crops
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for depredation efforts on fish-
     eating birds in the mid-South
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for Jack H. Berryman Institute of 
     Wildlife Damage Management in Utah
       $115,000 increase for coyote control program in West 
     Virginia
       Directs use of available funds to control spread of raccoon 
     rabies in the Northeast
       $455,000 increase for the Texas Oral Rabies Vaccination 
     Program
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for imported fire ant research at 
     University of Arkansas at Monticello
       $50,000 increase to initiate a demonstration project on 
     kudzu as a noxious weed
       $1 million increase for construction of a bison quarantine 
     facility in Montana to hold and test bison leaving 
     Yellowstone National Park


                          Supportive language

       --Supports plans by APHIS to assist producers who have 
     suffered losses due to karnal bunt
       --Expects APHIS to maintain animal damage control office in 
     Vermont at FY 1997 levels
       --Expects APHIS to use reserve funds for management of 
     western grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations
       --Expects APHIS to continue funding eradication of orbanche 
     ramosa in Texas
       Agricultural Marketing Service:


                                Earmarks

       $1.05 million increase for marketing assistance to Alaska
       Supportive language:
       --Expects AMS to continue to asses existing inventories of 
     canned pink salmon, pouched pink salmon, and salmon nuggets 
     made from chum salmon and determine whether there is a 
     surplus in FY 1998; encourages Agriculture Department to 
     purchase surplus salmon
       National Resources Conservation Service:


                                Earmarks

       $250,000 for agricultural development and resource 
     conservation in native Hawaiian communities serviced by 
     the Molokai Agriculture Community Committee
       $250,000 for Great Lakes Basin Program for soil and erosion 
     sediment control
       $3.5 million increase for technical assistance in Franklin 
     County, Mississippi
       $4.75 million for continued work on Chesapeake Bay
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for Mississippi Delta water 
     resources study to move into next phase
       Funding at FY 1997 levels for Golden Meadow, Louisiana, 
     Plant Materials Center, in collaboration with Crowley, 
     Louisiana, Rice Research Station, for development and 
     commercialization of artificial seed for smooth cord grass to 
     prevent coastal erosion
       $40,000 to continue development of techniques to address 
     loess hills erosion problem in Iowa
       $120,000 increase for a poultry litter composting project 
     utilizing sawdust in West Virginia
       $300,000 to carry out a long-range grazing lands initiative 
     to reduce current erosion in West Virginia
       Directs Agriculture Department to work with Hawaii 
     Department of Agriculture in securing environmentally safe 
     biological controls for alien weed pests introduced into 
     Hawaii and to provide funding
       $200,000 increase to develop a feasibility study for a 
     watershed project in Waianae, Hawaii, to alleviate and 
     prevent flood disasters
       $500,000 for West Virginia Department of Agriculture to 
     continue operation and testing of concepts, such as the 
     Micgas methane gas process, at the poultry waste energy 
     recovery project in Moorefield, West Virginia, and to study 
     the feasibility of resource recovery at Franklin, West 
     Virginia, to reduce poultry-related pollution in the South 
     Branch of the Potomac River


                          supportive language

       Expects NRCS to continue support of groundwater activities 
     in eastern Arkansas and programs related to Boeuf-Tensas and 
     Bayou Meto
       Expects continuation of planning and design activities for 
     the Kuhn Bayou, Arkansas project
       Supports and encourages Agriculture Department to provide 
     technical assistance and funding to assist Great Lakes 
     watershed initiative
       Supports work of GIS Center for Advanced Spacial Technology 
     in Arkansas in developing digital soil maps, and supports 
     continuation of the National Digital Orthophotography 
     Program, and urges NRCS to maintain its strong relationship 
     with the center
       Notes the economic potential of expanding aquaculture in 
     West Virginia and supports development of water treatment 
     practices for wastewater from aquaculture
       Supports needed financial assistance to complete the Indian 
     Creek Watershed project in Mississippi
       Urges NRCS to provide additional support to initiate work 
     on Poinsett Channel main ditch no. 1 in Arkansas
       Expects NRCS to find necessary resources to complete 
     innovative community-based comprehensive resource management 
     plans for West Virginia communities devastated by floods
       Encourages the Agriculture Department to raise the priority 
     of developing greater capacity water storage systems and 
     improving the efficiency of water delivery systems in Hawaii 
     and Maui
       Encourages Agriculture Department to give consideration to 
     emergency watershed needs in 41 of the 52 counties in the 
     State of Mississippi, and 3 counties in Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
     and New York [page 70 of report] when allocating watershed 
     and flood prevention funds to states
       Is aware of need for a pilot flood plain project for the 
     Tygart River basin in West Virginia
       Encourages Agriculture Department to finish 5 river 
     projects in Vermont, 1 project in North Dakota, and 1 project 
     in Mississippi [page 71 report]
       Encourages NRCS to assist FEMA in flood response and water 
     management activities in Devils Lake basin in North Dakota
       Rural Community Advancement Program:


                                earmarks

       Directs Agriculture Department to assist in financing 
     Alaska Village Electric Cooperative work to alleviate 
     environmental problems of leaking fuel lines and tanks


                          supportive language

       Encourages Agriculture Department to give the utmost 
     consideration to a grant application from the Native Village 
     Health Clinic in Nelson Lagoon, Alaska, for community 
     facility funding
       Encourages Agriculture Department to give consideration to 
     rural business enterprise grant applications from 11 entities 
     listed in the report [page 76 of report]
       Encourages Agriculture Department to consider applications 
     from 7 cities in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Alaska for 
     water and waste disposal loans and grants [page 77 of report]
       Rural Business Cooperative Service:


                    earmarks and directive language

       Directs RBCS to develop and implement a pilot project to 
     financing new or expanded diversified agricultural operations 
     in Hawaii because of the closure of sugarcane plantations
       $250,000 for an agribusiness and cooperative development 
     program at Mississippi State University
       Recommends continued staffing and operations of the 
     cooperative services office in Hilo, Hawaii, to address the 
     demand for cooperatives for the expanding diversified 
     agricultural sector


                          supportive language

       Encourages RBCS to work with Union County, Pennsylvania, to 
     explore options to facilitate construction of the Union 
     County Business Park
       Encourages RBCS to consider cooperative development grants 
     to New Mexico State University for rural economic development

[[Page S7934]]

     through tourism and to America's Agricultural Heritage 
     Partnership in Iowa
       Rural Utilities Service:
       Encourages Agriculture Department to give consideration to 
     the following applications for distance learning and medical 
     link program funds:
       University of Colorado Health Science Center telemedicine 
     project
       Demonstration project with Maui Community College
       Hawaii Community Hospital system
       Nutrition education activities of the University of 
     Hawaii's Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources College
       Vermont Department of Education proposal to provide high 
     schools in rural areas with two-way audio/video connections


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to renew my unanimous-consent 
request, with the modifications that we think are appropriate at this 
time. So I will begin again.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only remaining 
amendments in order, and limited to relevant second-degree amendment 
and votes ordered with respect to those amendments be stacked to occur 
beginning at 10 a.m. on Thursday, with 2 minutes for debate between 
each stacked vote, equally divided, except that there will be 10 
minutes prior to the Wellstone amendment.
  Those amendments are as follows and subject to time restraints where 
noted:
  Grams, on dairy compact; Wellstone, on school breakfast; a manager's 
package; a Bingaman amendment on CRP; Robb, concerning farmers' civil 
rights, and a Johnson amendment with regard to livestock packers.
  I further ask that following disposition of the amendments, the 
Senate then proceed to vote on S. 1033 and, following passage, the bill 
remain at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Therefore, there will be no further rollcall votes this 
evening. The next rollcall votes will be a series of votes completing 
action on the Agriculture appropriations bill occurring at 10 a.m.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am sorry the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain, left the floor. He listed a number of what he called earmarks, 
and the implication was that any money in this bill earmarked for 
specific kinds of research or specific kinds of personnel in a 
particular State was--he didn't say it in these words, but that it was 
pork and that earmarks are automatically bad. I could not disagree 
more. Every earmark the Senator from Arizona mentioned tonight, listed 
tonight in the bill, he was absolutely correct about it. Every one of 
them were for research projects.
  I said in my opening statement this morning that it is a tragedy that 
in this country we have become complacent about our food supplies, and, 
yet, we are adding 2 million people a year in this Nation alone to 
feed, and almost 100 million people a year worldwide to feed. And at 
the same time in this Nation, as we add 2 million people to feed, we 
are also taking between 2 million and 3 million acres of arable land 
out of cultivation for airports, urban sprawl, housing, you name it.
  Now, it is quite obvious to me that when you spend about $1.2 billion 
for research--I don't know precisely how much is in this bill, but when 
you consider the fact that we spend $13 billion a year on medical 
research, which I applaud, $13 billion a year for NASA, all of which I 
applaud--except space station, of course--and $36 billion to $40 
billion--I believe $40 billion we approved the other day to make things 
explode in the Defense authorization bill, without so much as a whimper 
from one person in this body--about $40 billion in research and 
development.
  I am not saying it is all bad. All I am saying is here is poor old 
agriculture which is going to be charged with the responsibility--and 
is charged with the responsibility--of providing a good, safe, reliable 
food supply for this country. The American housewife spends 10 cents of 
every dollar for food, the lowest of any nation on Earth. And to 
suggest that somehow or other these items in here simply because they 
earmarked are bad and a waste of money--I can tell you, for example, 
that the new poultry and meat inspection system which is being 
implemented right now as the ultimate in providing safe food for us to 
eat is the result of a very small appropriation to a consortium of the 
University of Arkansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State--one of the best 
bargains we ever got. And every dime of it was earmarked to start that 
program several years ago.
  Mr. President, I am about to get exercised. And I could go on with 
all the earmarks that have provided great research for this country 
that we have all benefited from.
  I know there is some pork in this bill, as there is in every bill. 
But I can tell you just because someone says it is for the State of 
Mississippi or the State of Arkansas doesn't mean it is bad. The truth 
of matter is we have reaped tremendous benefits from some of these 
earmarks.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I must say that I agree with the Senator 
from Arkansas on the last part of his comments.

                          ____________________