[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.
____________________