Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11076-S11095]
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, 2002--Continued

Amendment No. 1984

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to label, mark,
stamp, or tag as ``inspected and passed'' meat, meat products, poultry,
or poultry products that do not meet pathogen reduction performance
standards)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 1984:
On page 78, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 7 . PATHOGEN REDUCTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

(a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of
Agriculture to label, mark, stamp, or tag as ``inspected and
passed'' meat, meat food products, poultry, or poultry
products under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) or the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
451 et seq.) produced in establishments that do not meet
pathogen reduction performance standards (including
regulations), as determined by the Secretary in accordance
with applicable rules of practice.
(b) Rulemaking.--Not later than May 31, 2002 the Secretary
shall initiate public rulemaking to ensure the scientific
basis for any such pathogen reduction performance standard.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment, I believe, comes at a very
critical time in our Nation for concerns about our safety, about food
safety, about what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has told
us--that less than 1 percent of our imported food is being inspected.
There is great concern.
Quite frankly, I have been involved in agricultural matters now for
27 years. For many of those 27 years, I was involved, in both the House
and the Senate, in changing the inspection procedures at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture dealing with meat, poultry, meat products,
and poultry products to ensure that the people of our

[[Page S11077]]

country would have the highest assurance that the meat products and
poultry products they were purchasing in the store would be safe, that
they would have reduced pathogens, and that people could buy them with
the absolute assurance that every possible step was taken to ensure
they would not get sick.
We have had cases in the recent past. We know about the Jack In The
Box and E. Coli 015787. People died. We know from some of the lunch
meat packaged in a plant in Michigan where people got sick. Some died
there as well. There isn't a week that goes by that we don't hear
reports of some illness someplace because of food, food products. It is
not always meat, it may be other things.
So during these years, we changed the processes to ensure we would
have meat and meat products that would be as free from pathogens as
possible. We called that the HACCP. That is what everybody calls it. It
stands for the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point rule. We adopted
that in 1996. It was a landmark revision of the meat and poultry
inspection system. This rule implemented sweeping changes to accomplish
one primary goal: To ensure safer meat and poultry products, to reduce
the level of pathogens on meat and poultry products. That is why we did
it. It took us years to get to that point.
It was a significant departure from previous meat and poultry
inspection efforts--the old poke and sniff system. That is what it was.
You looked at it, you poked it and sniffed it, and if it seemed OK, it
went through. It did absolutely nothing to ensure the reduction of
pathogens.
So for the first time, USDA was not only focused on ensuring good
sanitation in plants, which we had always done, going clear back to the
Wholesome Meat Act, but also on reducing pathogens--the things that
really were making people sick. You might have had a plant that wasn't
the cleanest in the world, but it may not have had pathogens. Maybe the
plant looked clean on the outside--clean and sparkling--but at some
point in that processing plant, or packing plant, pathogens could be
entering the meat or meat products.
The pathogen reduction rule that accompanied the HACCP rule
established a modern inspection system based on two fundamental
principles:
First, the meat and poultry industry has the primary responsibility
to ensure the safety of our products by designing and implementing food
safety plants. Again, this is something the industry wanted. All these
years, the industry kept coming to us saying: We can do it ourselves.
We can set up systems to control the safety of our food and our meat
and our meat products. So we said: OK, fine, you can have that
authority. We will give that to you, along with the responsibility. So
that was the first fundamental principle--that the industry was now
going to be responsible.
The second fundamental principle was that the public health is best
served by reducing the level of pathogens on meat and poultry products
nationwide. You might say, well, if you buy something with pathogens on
it, if you cook it well enough, you don't have to worry. Fine. But a
lot of people don't. A lot of people don't. So we said the public
health of America is best served by reducing the pathogens on meat and
poultry products.
To accomplish these two principles, USDA developed pathogen reduction
standards using salmonella as the indicator bacteria.
These standards set targets that plants have to meet for reducing
microbial pathogen levels. If a plant repeatedly fails to meet these
targets, USDA may refuse to inspect the plant's products, effectively
shutting the plant down until that plant implements a corrective action
plan to meet the pathogen reduction standard. Recognize, I say ``may.''
The USDA may refuse to inspect the plant's products. It does not say
``shall.'' It says, ``may.'' So there is broad authority for the
Secretary of Agriculture to work with a plant. If it has a problem, if
there are pathogens that have showed up in the meat or poultry
products, the Secretary can work with the plant.
How did the pathogens get there? From where did they come? How do you
control it? How do you keep it from happening in the future? That has
been the process by which USDA has operated under this rule.
Quite frankly, we have had some pretty amazing results. I use this
first chart again to repeat for the sake of emphasis what I said. To
ensure safe food we needed two things: We needed the HACCP plan. Plus,
we needed the pathogen reduction standards.
If you take away one or the other, it does not work. So you need
both. So what has happened since 1996 when we first changed this and
started implementing it? From 1998 to 2000, 2 years, salmonella, which
makes you pretty sick--I know because I had it once--the class of the
product, using the present performance standard, the one we now have,
boilers have gone from 20 percent to 11.4 percent, almost cut in half.
As I understand, we are making even further progress there.
Ground beef went from 7.5 percent to 4.4 percent, again almost a 50-
percent reduction. Ground chicken, where we had some baseline studies,
we went from 44.6 percent incidents in ground chicken of salmonella to
16.2 percent.
Are our people safer today? You bet they are safer. By a long shot,
they are safer in eating meat, meat products, poultry and poultry
products. So it is working.
So what is this amendment all about that I just offered? What
happened was there was a plant in Texas called Supreme Beef. Basically,
Supreme Beef had been warned three times by the Department of
Agriculture that they had too high a level of pathogen, salmonella, on
their ground beef. This was a ground beef plant. They warned them one
time.
Did they shut the plant down? No, they did not shut the plant down.
They said: You have too much salmonella in your ground beef. We found
it. Do something about it. Work with us.
Sometime later, I think about a year later, if I am not mistaken,
USDA inspected the plant again, took some samples, and found out there
was still a high level of salmonella in the ground beef. The USDA said
to Supreme Beef, you have to clean up your act. You have to find out
where these are coming from and stop it.
Again, some time went by. USDA went back, inspected them the third
time and found that same high level of salmonella in their ground beef.
This time they told them to shut down.
During the entire time USDA was working with Supreme Beef to get them
to clean up their act, we continued to buy ground beef from that same
plant for the school lunch program, even though it had high levels of
salmonella, putting our kids in school at risk. Yet the Department of
Agriculture worked with Supreme Beef to get them to find out where was
the salmonella coming from and to stop it--three times. Yet Supreme
Beef just thumbed their nose at the USDA.
Then what happened? After USDA shut them down, lawyers for Supreme
Beef went to court. They went to court arguing the Secretary of
Agriculture did not have the authority to shut down Supreme Beef based
upon these salmonella standards. The case was argued in Federal
District Court in Texas. Supreme Beef lawyers went to court challenging
the authority of the Secretary to take that action. It was argued at
length.
On May 25 of 2000, 1\1/2\ years ago, the Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Texas held the United States Department of
Agriculture does not have the statutory authority to enforce its
salmonella pathogen reduction standard for ground beef.
That case is now on appeal to the appeals court. We do not know when
a decision is going to be made.
Quite frankly, the Texas case is a frontal assault on microbiological
standards, the very thing the people of our country are highly
concerned about right now. The decision undermines the only objective
standard we have right now to ensure that meat and poultry plants are
reducing the level of pathogens on its products. It threatens the very
core of the pathogen reduction rule itself.
Let me be very clear. I think the district court got it wrong. I
believe the existing meat and poultry inspection acts do give USDA that
authority to issue and enforce pathogen reduction standards. I think it
is intolerable to have the very core of this rule trampled by a handful
of industry lawyers

[[Page S11078]]

bent on ensuring there are no enforceable pathogen standards--none.
That is what they want. That is why I have offered this amendment.
This amendment has broad support among public health groups, consumer
groups, farmers, labor unions, senior citizens, even the meat and
poultry industry itself. The American Farm Bureau Federation supports
this amendment, AARP, the American Food Safety Institute, American
Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the
National Farmers Union, the National Parent Teachers Association, the
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, the Iowa Meat Processors
Association from my own State, the Iowa Pork Producers Association, and
the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, the Consumers Union.
I ask unanimous consent the list of all these groups that support my
amendment and the letters from these groups in support of my amendment
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Supporters of the Harkin Amendment

AARP.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Food Safety Institute.
American Public Health Association.
Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Consumer Federation of America.
Consumer Union.
Government Accountability Project.
National Consumers League.
National Farmers Union.
National Parent Teachers Association.
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stock Growers
of America.
Iowa Meat Processors Association.
Iowa Pork Producers Association.
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation.
Safe Tables Our Priority.
United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
____

National PTA,

Chicago, IL, September 26, 2001.
Senate Appropriations Committee,
Agriculture Subcommittee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: I am writing to urge your support for the
amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill that will be
introduced by Senator Harkin to clarify USDA's legal
authority to enforce standards for reducing pathogens in meat
and poultry products.
As president of the National PTA, I represent over 6.4
million parents, teachers, students, and other advocates
committed to the health and safety of our nation's children.
National PTA supports legislation to sustain, improve, and
expand federal child nutrition programs, including school
meals and antihunger efforts. Such advocacy efforts fall
short, however, if the meals fed our children are tainted by
foodborne pathogens, to which children are even more
susceptible than are adults.
The HACCP/Pathogen Reduction rule adopted by the USDA in
1996 included standards to reduce these pathogens. Last year,
however, a federal court barred USDA from enforcing these
standards. Senator Harkin's amendment is needed to clarify
that USDA does indeed have the authority under the Federal
Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts to enforce pathogen
reduction standards in meat and poultry products.
To improve the safety of our children's meals, I urge you
to support Senator Harkin's amendment.
Sincerely,
Shirley Igo,
President.
____

AARP,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of AARP, I am writing in
support of your amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations
Bill that would help ensure a safer meat supply. Food safety
is of particular concern to older Americans who, along with
young children and those with immune deficiencies, are at
particular risk from foodborne illness.
The amendment is long overdue. We are pleased that it would
clarify the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to set standards to control pathogens in meat.
Unfortunately, this authority has come into question as a
result of a court case in Texas, in which a meat company
successfully sued the Department to prevent it from enforcing
its performance standard for Salmonella, a standard that the
company had failed to satisfy on three separate occasions.
We agree that it is imperative to reaffirm USDA's authority
to adopt and enforce performance standards; otherwise, the
effectiveness of the comprehensive Hazards Analysis Critical
Control Points (HACCP)-based meat inspection system will be
seriously jeopardized.
We strongly support your amendment.
Sincerely,
William D. Novelli,
Executive Director and CEO.
____

Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, October 16, 2001.
Ms. Carol Tucker Foreman,
The Food Policy Institute, Consumer Federation of America,
Washington, DC.
Dear Carol: Thank you for your October 15, 2001, letter to
Secretary Veneman about performance standards.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) believes that we must
have performance standards for pathogens. We recognize that
some groups have questioned what the appropriate pathogen
performance standards should be and whether the present
performance standards are scientifically based. We believe
that the results of two studies now underway by the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods will provide important
scientific information. In the meantime, USDA remains
committed to enforcing the current performance standards at
every meat and poultry establishment in the country to which
they apply.
Certain groups also have raised questions about the
application of the pathogen reduction performance standards.
USDA supports the retention of the Secretary's discretion in
determining the appropriate application of the standards.
Because of pending litigation filed in 2000, the
Department's policy is to refrain from commenting on any
matter that relates directly to the Supreme Beef Processors,
Inc., case. For this reason, we cannot comment on legislative
amendments sponsored by Senator Harkin or by the industry.
We appreciate hearing from you. I'm looking forward to
working with you and our other stakeholders to ensure a safe
food supply for all Americans.
Warm regards,
Elsa A. Murano,
Under Secretary, Food Safety.
____

CFA,

Washington, DC, October 5, 2001.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: Consumer Federation of America urges
you to vote FOR the Harkin amendment to H.R. 2330, the
agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. The
amendment specifically states that the Secretary of
Agriculture has authority to impose and enforce limits on
disease causing organisms in meat and poultry products. This
element of the USDA's new inspection system has been
challenged in court. Opponents charge that laws passed in
1906 and 1967 did not contemplate a science-based inspection
system and assumed inspection would include only visible
examination by federal inspectors.
But federal inspectors cannot see the pathogenic bacteria
that cause food-borne illness. This is one reason that food
poisoning has become a serious public health problem in the
United States. The Centers for Disease Control reports that
each year contaminated food causes 76 million illnesses,
325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. Contaminated meat
and poultry products are often implicated in food poisoning
cases.
To help reduce the terrible toll of food-borne illness,
USDA introduced a new science-based inspection program, the
Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(PR/HACCP) inspection system. The new program sets limits on
the levels of Salmonella that can be present in raw meat and
poultry products.
Since USDA began setting and enforcing Salmonella
standards, the amount of Salmonella in meat and poultry
products has dropped substantially. For some products, it has
dropped by half. While USDA inspectors remain in the plants,
the performance standards are the only objective measure of
whether a plant's HACCP program actually produces food that
is cleaner, safer and less likely to cause food-borne illness
than the old inspection system.
If the pathogen standards are eliminated, each company will
be free to decide how much pathogen contamination is
acceptable. A meat or poultry company could produce filthy
products with thousands of Salmonella bacteria. Those
products would be stamped, ``USDA Inspected and Approved''
and sold to unsuspecting consumers.
Consumer Federation of America has strongly supported
Pathogen Reduction/HACCP. It is an important step forward in
meat and poultry inspection. But our support has always been
conditioned on USDA setting and enforcing pathogen controls.
If this objective measure of adequate performance is dropped,
we will withdraw our support and inform our members that the
USDA inspection seal is largely meaningless.
The pathogen reduction requirements do not unnecessarily
burden industry. Frankly, the performance standards are not
as stringent as they should be. Plants have only a .8 percent
chance of failing three times in a row. Hundreds of plants
have been tested. Only four have failed the test three times.
Further, USDA makes every effort to help plants comply. If a
plant fails once, USDA works with management to adjust the
company's processes so they can meet the standard. The plant
is tested again and it it still fails, USDA continues to work
with them. Then they are tested yet again. This process may
go on for almost a year. During all that time the company's
products continue to be approved and sold.
In this system, everyone benefits. Companies know what the
standard is. Companies that fail get help from USDA so they
can pass subsequent tests. Consumers benefit

[[Page S11079]]

from the reduction in disease causing organisms. The Harkin
amendment will assure that the pathogen controls remain in
effect.
With threats of terrorist attacks on our food supply
possible, it would be shocking if Congress failed to protect
these standards. It would surely increase the risk of food-
borne disease and further diminish public confidence in our
food supply.
We urge your support for the Harkin amendment.
Sincerely,
Howard Metzenbaum,
Chairman.
Carol Tucker Foreman,
Director, Food Policy Institute.
____

Safe Food Coalition,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2001.
Dear Senator: The undersigned members of the Safe Food
Coalition urge you to support an amendment by Senator Harkin
to H.R. 2330, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for FY
2002. The amendment clarifies USDA's authority to set
standards to control the presence of pathogens in meat and
poultry products. It is needed for the following reasons:
USDA's Rule Limiting The Presence Of Disease Causing
Bacteria In Meat And Poultry Is Threatened. A meat company in
Texas has sued USDA to prevent the Department from enforcing
its Salmonella performance standard. The Texas company, a
major supplier of meat to the school lunch program, failed
the Salmonella standard three times. USDA sought to close the
plant. A federal district court allowed the company to
continue selling meat, despite the company's apparent
inability to meet this basic food safety test.
The decision is under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 5th Circuit. If that court rules against the USDA,
the department will be unable to enforce limits on Salmonella
in ground beef in any of the states comprising the 5th
Circuit. Further, the meat industry continues to pressure
USDA to drop Salmonella testing all across the country.
The Salmonella standard is reasonable and it is effective.
Since it went into effect over three years ago, Salmonella
contamination has dropped in all tested products--dropped by
50 percent in some. USDA applies this test in thousands of
slaughter and grinding facilities. Fewer than a half-dozen
plants have failed the test three times. There are two
reasons for the high pass rate. First, the performance
standard is not hard to meet. In practice it falls below the
industry median for each product. To pass, a plant need not
even be as good as the least effective plant in the top half
of all plants. In 2000, 91 percent of the ground beef plants
tested by USDA under the rule met the standard on each round
of tests and 92 percent of the 344 small ground beef plants
tested met the standard on each round.
Second, USDA helps plants meet the standard. If a plant
fails once, USDA staff works with the plant to help it
resolve the problem. If it fails a second time, the USDA
again seeks to help the plant correct the deficiencies in its
HACCP plan. It is only when a plant, after getting help from
USDA and being given multiple opportunities to pass, fails a
third time to meet the Salmonella standard, that it becomes
subject to sanctions. In the case of Supreme Beef, almost a
year passed between the time Supreme failed the first test
and the point at which USDA finally tried to close the plant.
Consumers might well ask why USDA allows any plant that fails
to meet the Salmonella contamination limit to continue
operating for such extended periods.
Limits on Salmonella in meat and poultry are basic to the
USDA's new inspection system, officially named the Pathogen
Reduction and HACCP System. In 1996, USDA began to shift from
its old inspection program to a new one, the so-called HACCP
system. Under the new system, plants are responsible for
producing clean, safe products. The Salmonella standard,
Salmonella testing, and enforcement of the standard are the
means by which the government works to assure that a plant's
HACCP program does what it promises, providing an acceptable
level of public health protection. Consumer and public health
organizations initially opposed the HACCP program. We gave
our support only after HACCP was coupled with pathogen
reduction to help protect public health. The Salmonella
performance standard, Salmonella testing, and enforcement are
basic to our continued support for the program. Salmonella
test results are our objective proof that a HACCP plan works
to limit the presence of these disease causing organisms.
Meat and poultry are the only products that come to the
consumer with a Government warranty. Enclosed with this
letter are copies of the USDA seal of inspection. Every
package of meat and poultry sold to consumers is stamped,
``Inspected and Approved, USDA'' or ``Inspected for
Wholesomeness, USDA.''
No other product, not cars, nor tires, nor airplanes--not
even other food carries an assurance that the U.S. government
has examined it and attests that it meets a standard for
wholesomeness. Americans have a right to assume that products
carrying the USDA seal will be reasonably safe and clean, not
loaded with disease causing organisms. It is not unreasonable
to ask the companies whose products carry a U.S. government
seal of approval to demonstrate that those products are clean
and safe and relatively free of disease causing organisms.
Food-borne illness is a serious public health problem in
the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control
contaminated food cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000
hospitalization and 5,000 deaths each year. Government
standards must limit the organisms that cause these
illnesses. The Harkin amendment will ensure that whatever
decision is reached by the Court of Appeals, beef shipped
within the US will continue to meet strict safety standards
for Salmonella.
Please do not turn the clock back on food safety. Do not
break faith with consumers who assume that the USDA seal of
inspection has some integrity. Do not allow companies who
fail to limit pathogens in their products to continue to sell
their meat and poultry as ``USDA Inspected and Approved.''
Maintaining the pathogen standard will help preserve public
health. it will also protect legitimate businesses from those
companies that are unable or unwilling to meet a decent
standard.
Again, we ask you to support the Harkin amendment.
Carol Tucker Foreman,
Coordinator, SFC, Director, Food Policy Institute, Consumer
Federation of America, Assistant Secretary, USDA, 1977-81, on
Behalf of the following organizations:

American Public Health Association.
Consumers Union (Consumers Union is not a member of the
Safe Food Coalition but endorses this position statement).
Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Government Accountability Project.
Consumer Federation of America.
National Consumers League.
Safe Tables--Our Priority (S.T.O.P.)

Mr. HARKIN. It is a broad coalition, from farm groups to labor unions
to consumer groups to parent teachers. It covers the entire spectrum of
the food safety chain from farm to table.
Now, some may be surprised there is meat and poultry industry support
for my amendment. Do not be surprised. My staff and I have spent hours
and hours in meetings trying to arrive at a compromise with industry
opponents of these microbiological performance standards.
My door has been open to all. There is no one who can say I would not
meet with them to discuss how we reach some agreement. The reason we
have this support from many meat and poultry groups is because the
pathogen reduction standard is simply the right thing to do for food
safety.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend from Illinois who
has led the charge for a single food agency in this country. He is on
the right course. I hope he gets it done soon.
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to be an ally on this cause, as well. I
recollect a few months ago there was a release on the Web site of the
USDA suggesting they were going to relax, if not remove, the salmonella
standard for school lunch programs. Many people saw it and started to
respond.
If I am not mistaken, the very next morning, Ari Fleischer at the
White House, in the opening briefing said: This is not true; it is not
where the USDA stands; we are for the strictest standard when it comes
to the presence of salmonella in ground beef for school lunch programs.
What the Senator from Iowa is arguing for, if I am not mistaken, is
the position of the USDA, and the position President Bush has taken, is
that they will establish the standards--the district court case in
Texas notwithstanding.
The Senator from Iowa, a Democratic Senator, is offering a
reaffirmation of the position taken by both Democratic and Republican
Departments of Agriculture. Does the Senator from Iowa recall this?
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend from Illinois bringing that up. I
have it later in my speech someplace. You beat me to the gun.
It is true, there was this indication that someone in the Department,
probably at the behest of the industry lawyers, maybe the same one who
brought the Supreme Beef case, I don't know, decided they would relax
the salmonella standards on the very meat our kids eat in school.
As the Senator said, the hue and cry was incredible. The
administration came to its senses and said the next morning: It said
absolutely not. The administration said it will enforce those standards
and it wanted the toughest standards. All we are doing is giving the
Secretary of Agriculture the statutory authority to do just that.
Mr. DURBIN. So those who oppose this amendment not only oppose a
standard created by the Clinton administration and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, but a standard that has been reaffirmed by the Bush
administration in its current Department of Agriculture.

[[Page S11080]]

Mr. HARKIN. I believe that is entirely true.
As I said, the reason we have such broad support is because the
pathogen reduction standards is the right thing to do for food safety.
The vast majority of our packers and our processers in this country are
conscientious and want to do the right thing. They work with the
Department of Agriculture. As my chart shows, they have been
energetically reducing the number of pathogens that enter our foods.
But, as anything else, there are always some out there who believe they
can shave a little bit, skim a little bit, make an extra buck here or
there. And after all, they can cite the Supreme Beef case in Texas, and
say: You don't have the authority to enforce this standard.
Those who have refused to compromise at all have resorted to a
campaign against this amendment based on untruths and misstatements. I
want to set the record straight on some of these most egregious
examples.
First, industry opponents have said that the current administration
does not support having enforceable pathogen standards. As my friend
from Illinois pointed out, just read what Ari Fleischer said at that
press conference that morning, they want the toughest standards.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
Under Secretary for Food Safety, Dr. Murano.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary,

Mr. HARKIN. The Department of Agriculture believes we must have
performance standards with pathogens.
Second, the industry opponents have said my amendment will codify the
salmonella performance standard. This is patently untrue. We only
clarify that the Secretary has a generic authority. We do not set any
standard. I leave that to the scientists.
Industry opponents claim my amendment would limit the Secretary's
discretion to determine when a plant has failed to meet the performance
standard. This is demonstrably untrue. We worked with Secretary Veneman
to ensure my amendment preserves the Secretary's existing flexibility
to work with plants in danger of failing the standard. We both want to
avoid withdrawing inspections where plants are genuinely working to
come into compliance with the standard and there is no immediate threat
to public health. Obviously, if there is an immediate threat to public
health, like E. coli, or something like that which will kill you,
obviously, the Secretary should have the authority to shut that plant
down.
There are a number of other arguments they have made which are
patently untrue, but I will not get into them here. In deciding whether
to support my amendment, my colleagues should consider the following
question: How do you explain to America's families why a plant shipping
ground beef with salmonella levels more than five times the national
average, ground beef that is going into the School Lunch Program, how
do you explain to our families that plant shouldn't even be asked to
clean up its act? These are the facts of the case in Texas. The plant
had the worst record on pathogen levels in the country and one of its
biggest customers was the School Lunch Program. It failed three rounds
of salmonella testing. No one said, we are shutting you down. They
asked them to submit a plan for corrective action. The owner refused. I
think when the health of our kids is at stake and our families are at
stake, this is common sense.
Last, in trying to reach an agreement with those who are opposed to
this amendment, I added a section. I will be very clear so people
understand this added section. I will read it:

Not later than May 31, 2002, the Secretary shall initiate
public rulemaking to ensure the scientific basis for any such
pathogen reduction standard.

Now, the first part of my amendment basically says that between now
and then the Secretary has the statutory authority to enforce the
existing pathogen reduction standards based upon the salmonella
bacteria indicator.
That is all it says. So those who are opposed to my amendment are
saying they want to leave a gap that between now and some indefinite
time in the future the Secretary will not have that authority, will not
have that authority to enforce a pathogen reduction standard.
People ought to take a look around and see what is happening in this
country. The people of this country are demanding we reduce the
pathogens in our food and in our food supply. We have been doing it
under the existing standard, but because of one district court case in
Texas that said we did not give the Secretary the statutory authority,
that is now in question.
All my amendment does is give the Secretary the statutory authority
to enforce the standards. We don't set the standards. And then it says
further, by May 31 of next year the Secretary has to initiate public
rulemaking to ensure that a pathogen reduction standard is based on
good science.
How can anyone argue with that?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 1987 to Amendment No. 1984

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I send a second-degree
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr.
Miller, proposes an amendment numbered 1987 to amendment No.
1984.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the word ``sec'' and insert the following:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture
shall be available for application of the mark of inspection
to any meat or poultry product that is shown to be
adulterated: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Agriculture shall prepare a report, which is to be submitted
by May 15, 2002, to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, regarding the role
of microbiological monitoring and standards relating to
indicator organisms and pathogens in determining the
effectiveness and adequacy of Food Safety and Inspection
Service Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
meat and poultry safety programs, including relevant points
of general scientific agreement regarding such monitoring,
and analysis of the microbiological data accumulated by the
Secretary to identify opportunities to further enhance food
safety, as well as any modification of regulations or
statutory enforcement authority that may advance food safety;
Provided further, That not later than August 1, 2002, the
Secretary shall initiate public rulemaking to improve the
effectiveness and adequacy of the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HAACP) System established under part
417 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in support of this
second-

[[Page S11081]]

degree amendment and believe it requires some degree of explanation as
to how it may differ from the amendment which has been offered.
It has been characterized that this is an issue about food safety.
But truly the difference between his amendment and mine is not about
food safety, it is about whether or not we are going to enforce a
flawed standard before we have studies completed that this body
mandated last year. That is what this issue is all about, not whether
or not we are going to have food safety.
My amendment doesn't move to table Senator Harkin's amendment, but it
seeks to improve it. I believe in fact it does.
We worked very diligently to find a way to have a solution. But the
solution would have required authorizing and empowering the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, by statute, by his amendment, to enforce a
standard about which a court in Texas, a Federal district court in
Texas, has said, among other things:

The performance standard may not be enforced because it
doesn't measure food safety.

I am for food safety. But I am not for a standard that doesn't
measure food safety. Nor am I in favor of empowering specifically
eliminating any question about the authority of an agency to enforce a
standard that does not measure food safety.
I am most definitely interested in making certain that we have food
safety. That is why I worked very closely with my colleague to work out
some language which he has included in his amendment. I commend him for
doing that because that language says that, by May 31 of next year, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture must initiate rulemaking and a standard
based on these studies which are expected to be completed by that time.
I think it would be unwise for this body to now empower the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to enforce standards that do not measure food
safety after, last year, authorizing and requiring studies that will,
in fact, establish a standard that will be aimed at measuring food
safety and empowering the agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
to be able to use those standards in order to impose an appropriate
salmonella standard for all food. That is what the question is really
all about: Do we enforce and authorize and require the enforcement of a
standard that doesn't rise to that level versus authorizing the agency
and requiring the agency to, by a certain time--a timeframe certain--to
have the rulemaking in place in order to impose an appropriate standard
based on sound science.
That is what this issue is about: Whether or not we are going to have
a standard based on sound science or one that the court says doesn't
measure food safety.
There are some other things the amendment does that I think are
important. It specifies that food that is unsafe or labeled
inaccurately or is otherwise adulterated cannot bear the U.S.
Department of Agriculture mark of inspection.
It further goes on to make sure that the agency, the Secretary of
Agriculture, comes forward with the report that specifies the general
points of scientific agreement regarding microbiological testing and
standards.
This will require a standard that we can be sure is based on sound
science. Until these reports are done, we can't be sure the current
standard is strict enough. It is not a question of whether it is too
lax. We don't know.
I am unlikely to support the requirement of that standard until, in
fact, we have the studies done to know if it is strict enough. The
suggestion might be that it is not strict enough. But I suggest we do
not know and we will not know until and unless these studies that were
authorized by this body last year have been completed and a rule
adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I yield to my colleague from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I think it is so important for us to
make sure we understand what we are talking about tonight and what some
of our colleagues have expressed. We do not oppose a standard which was
mentioned earlier by the Senator from Illinois. What we do want is a
good standard.
This body requested studies this time last year as we debated this
whole issue. Since then, through hearings, everyone has agreed--even
USDA agreed, as they testified to that as they effect--that the
standard, the current standard, is flawed. Basically what we have been
trying to say is that enforcing a flawed standard is, in effect,
codifying a bad standard. We do not want to do that.
This issue was debated last year. We worked with Senator Harkin then
at the time, saying the issue was not whether there should be
enforceable microbial testing standard for meat and poultry plants, the
question was what standard should be used and what should be the
scientific basis for that standard.
We directed those studies, both from the National Research Council
and the USDA Scientific Advisory Committee, to make recommendations
regarding microbial testing in plants. These committees were directed
to review the appropriateness of the existing salmonella performance
standard and to recommend a microbial testing program that will measure
food safety performance in meat and poultry plants. We want a good
standard. We want a standard based on science, which is exactly what
the Senator from Nebraska is asking.
Some would claim that food safety would be compromised while we await
USDA's recommendation. That is simply not the case. USDA is still
conducting salmonella performance tests at every meat and poultry plant
in the Nation. USDA still has a wide variety of enforcement tools
available, including withdrawal of inspection if meat or poultry plants
produce adulterated products or operate in unsanitary conditions.
Food safety must continue to be a top national priority. I don't
think that is the argument here. We want to see the best standards. But
our food standards must be practical, they must be enforceable, and
they must be based on scientific evidence, which is exactly what we
asked for last year.
What we want to see happen is that we use these studies, we use this
scientific evidence, that we have worked so hard to get, as it comes
out this spring and put it into practice across this country.
We don't want to base it on sound bytes or newspaper headlines. I
think Senator Nelson's amendment will allow us to achieve that goal.
That is why I urge our colleagues to vote for and support his amendment
so we can base good standards on scientific findings.
I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is a fundamental difference here.
Quite frankly, the standard in place now is, in fact, based upon the
best science that was available during the time when they promulgated
that standard. As I pointed out in my amendment on May 31, the
Secretary has to start rulemaking based upon the best science
available. I agree with that.
Let us not be mistaken. This amendment says if you want to have
uncertainty out there as to whether or not the Secretary can enforce a
patent and pathogen reduction standard, this is the amendment for you
because that is what we have. We have uncertainty right now because of
the Supreme Beef case in Texas.
This amendment by my good friend from Nebraska basically says that is
what we are going to have. We are going to have this vast uncertainty
out there.
I don't want my kids and I don't want your kids and grandkids, or the
people of this country having that cloud of uncertainty.
That is why I believe this amendment should be defeated--because it
leaves the uncertainty there. It would allow for plants such as Supreme
Beef to continue to snub their noses at the Secretary of Agriculture
and at reducing the pathogen standard.
That is why I move to table the second-degree amendment, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. REID. Could the Chair check that again?

[[Page S11082]]

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion
to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Their now appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning),
the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Burns), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 314 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--50

Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Campbell
Carper
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--5

Bunning
Burns
Domenici
Hutchison
Stevens
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment No. 1984, withdrawn

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, what was the request? The
Senator asked unanimous consent for something, but I could not
understand it.
Mr. HARKIN. I asked unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, he asked unanimous
consent to withdraw his amendment. The amendment has been amended by
the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. I hope the Senator
from Nebraska will suggest what his intentions are.
I don't want to object if the Senator from Nebraska is not going to
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Iowa?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are simply waiting
now for a managers' amendment that should be available shortly. As soon
as it is available, we will deal with that. As I understand it, that is
the last amendment remaining. We will then go to final passage.
For the information of all Senators, assuming we are able to go to
final passage tonight, there will be no session tomorrow. We will be in
pro forma session on Monday. It would be my expectation, in
consultation with Senator Lott, to go to the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill Tuesday morning.
I yield the floor.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman and ranking
member working with me to find funding for a crucial Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) Station project. This project will further the
research and commercial adaptation of swine waste management. It will
be an offset facility located in North Carolina, but is associated with
the Florence, SC, ARS Station. In order to fund the start-up costs and
equipment rental associated with this project, the full cost to ARS is
estimated to be $1 million. The nature of this project is urgent. I
hope ARS will fund this program with available fiscal year 2002 funds.
Mr. HELMS. I am grateful to my friend from South Carolina, Senator
Thurmond, for his determination to pursue this project which will be
located in North Carolina. I believe ARS should make this project a
priority. I appreciate the managers of the bill acknowledging its
importance.
Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator from South Carolina bringing this
important issue to my attention. I am confident we can work together to
encourage ARS to fund this project in fiscal year 2002.
Mr. COCHRAN. I understand why this project is important to my
colleagues. I will work with them to find a way to help ARS move
forward in funding this project.

NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman Kohl
and Senator Cochran for the hard work they have put into the fiscal
year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an
excellent job balancing competing interests within the confines of a
balanced budget.
I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee regarding the appropriation for the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development Programs. The committee has encouraged
the Department to continue to support the National Rural Development
Partnership (NRDP) and its associated State Rural Development Councils
within existing funds. It is my understanding that an allocation of
$5.5 million would provide Federal funding to 40 State Rural
Development Councils (SRDCs) at the level they received in fiscal year
2001 and that it would cover other necessary program support for the
NRDP/SRDCs. I would ask that this need be considered when this bill
goes to conference.
The National Rural Development Partnership is a nonpartisan
interagency working group whose mission is to contribute to the
vitality of the Nation by strengthening the ability of rural Americans
to fully participate in determining their futures. Although the
Partnership has existed for 10 years, it has never been formally
authorized by Congress.
Thirty seven members of the Senate have joined on legislation to
formally establish the NRDP and SRDCs, S. 1111, the National Rural
Development Partnership Act. This legislation authorizes or formally
recognizes the existence and operations of the Partnership, the
National Rural Development Council, and SRDCs. In addition, the
legislation gives specific responsibilities to each component of the
partnership and authorizes it to receive Congressional appropriations.
It is essential that the current network of SRDCs remain viable while
we work to pass this legislation. The core components of S. 1111 have
been included in the House version of the farm hill and we are working
to have S. 1111 included in the Senate version of the farm bill. In
addition, a task force, which includes significant representation
external to the NRDP, is currently considering questions related to the
mission, structure, and operations of the NRDP and SRDCs. Fiscal year
2002 is a transitional year during which fundamental issues related to
the NRDP and SRDCs will be addressed. During fiscal year 2002, unique
role of helping to coordinate rural development policies and programs
must be preserved.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his remarks, and I look
forward to working with him to resolve this issue in conference. It is
my understanding that contributions provided to the NRDP from other
Federal agencies could be used to diminish the amount of funding that
would come from USDA. The NRDP and SRDCs provide rural citizens and
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and corporations that serve rural
areas with a forum for analyzing challenges and developing holistic and
cost-effect solutions. There has never been a greater need for the type
of work done by the partnership and SRDCs.

Exotic diseases

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Kohl and

[[Page S11083]]

Ranking Member Cochran for recognizing the increasing threat posed by
emerging and exotic diseases to animals and crops through out the
United States and providing the Agricultural Research Service an
increase of $6,782,000 for fiscal year 2002. I also want to confirm
that the Committee intends for at least $500,000 of these funds to be
used to meet the higher operating costs presented by the new state-of-
the-art ARS U.S. Vegetable Lab in Charleston, South Carolina.
Mr. KOHL. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. I understand
there has been significant progress on its construction and the new
facility is scheduled to open in February 2002. I agree that the
necessary funds must be provided for its operations.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Such progress would not have been possible without the
support I have received over the years from both sides of the aisle on
this project. The new laboratory will play an important role in the ARS
mission of conducting research to solve regional and national problems
in the production and protection of vegetable crops. This research is
critical to the continued production of crops in a sustainable
agricultural economy.
Mr. COCHRAN. Certainly the research conducted by the lab is a key
component in ensuring that an affordable, safe and dependable supply of
nutritious vegetable crops is available to U.S. consumers. I, too, want
to assure the Senator from South Carolina that it is my understanding
these funds will be used to meet the higher operating costs of the
Charleston Vegetable Lab.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member
of the subcommittee for their attention to this matter and, again,
appreciate the assistance they have provided on this project over the
years.

Sudden Oak Death Syndrome

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to address an emerging
ecological crisis in California that quite literally threatens to
change the face of my State, and perhaps others.
California's beloved oak trees are in grave peril. Thousands of black
oak, coastal live oak, tan, and Shreve's oak trees--among the most
familiar and best loved features of California's landscape--are dying
from a newly discovered disease known as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome.
The loss of trees is fast approaching epidemic proportions, with tens
of thousands of dead trees appearing across the Californian landscape.
As the trees die, enormous expanses of forest face substantially
increased fire risk because the dead trees are highly flammable. These
dead trees are also more likely to blow over in high winds, posing a
growing risk to people and property.
Unfortunately, this terrible disease has also been found in at least
10 other plant species, including rhododendron in commercial nurseries.
Other commercially important plants such as blueberries and cranberries
are also believed vulnerable.
Most disturbing is the fact that Sudden Oak Death Syndrome is
spreading rapidly. It was recently discovered in Oregon. Fear that it
will spread further has already provoked Canada and South Korea to ban
the importation of California oak products. Scientists believe it may
only be a matter of time before this disease reaches oaks and other
species in the Midwest, Northeast, and around the country.
It is vital that we invest now in efforts to stop the spread of this
disease before it becomes uncontrollable. Although the Senate bill does
not include funding to address this issue, the House has provided
$500,000 for these purposes. Last year, the Agriculture Committee
provided over $2 million in funding to address this disease. Am I
correct in understanding that the chairman will assist in conference to
ensure that the final bill includes funding to address Sudden Oak Death
Syndrome?
Mr. KOHL. Yes. I recognize that Sudden Oak Death Syndrome is a
growing problem that threatens oak trees and other species in my State
and around the Nation. I assure my colleague that I will do my best in
conference to push for an increase in funding to $1,000,000 when the
agriculture bill is considered in conference.

national organic standards

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very concerned over the National
Organic Standards Board's recent recommendation to USDA that wild
seafood not be eligible for organic labeling. This decision ignored the
plain evidence on the record that most wild seafood, and wild Alaska
salmon in particular, are the most organic, natural fish available on
the market today.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senate bringing this to our attention.
We will look into it.
Mr. KOHL. I also appreciate being advised of this matter.

south plains range research station

Mr. NICKLES. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has
provided $1.5 million for the Southern Plains Range Research Station in
Woodward, OK. However, it has come to my attention that there is an
urgent need for a conference center at the facility to house
agricultural conferences and agricultural training programs as well as
community activities. Because this center is to be available to the
community, the city of Woodward has committed to provide $3,000,000 for
the construction of the conference center. The study for this facility
is estimated to cost $400,000 to determine if this facility would be a
good use of Federal tax dollars. I hope the agency will complete this
study within available funds.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for bringing this
important project to the committee's attention and also hope the agency
can find a way to do the feasibility study on this project.

agricultural research service

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the chairman and the
ranking member for supporting my request to expand research on cereal
crops and sunflowers at the Agricultural Research Service Northern
Crops Research Laboratory at Fargo, ND. This bill recommends an
increase of $900,000 for expanded research on small grains and
sunflowers.
The economic viability of small grains industries remains a concern
as a result of production and marketing problems faced by producers in
recent years. The barley industry has been particularly hard hit due to
weather related problems. We have seen production of this crop decline
by 40 percent during the past ten years due to weather related
problems. In North Dakota, the decline in production has been even more
dramatic with production falling off by 53 percent during the same time
period.
I think we need to use a portion of the increased funding over the
last year's level to develop new barley varieties that are high
yielding and have good feed quality attributes. No such program
currently exists and I think increased research in this area would help
the barley industry gain a competitive edge.
Mr. KOHL. I understand the need for increased research in this area
and I will do my best to hold the increases for cereal crops research
contained in the Senate bill.

Animal Waste Research

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished chairman
of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kohl, and the
ranking member, Mr. Cochran, for their willingness to acknowledge the
exciting animal waste research taking place in North Carolina.
Senator Edwards and I are deeply impressed with the initiative being
shown by the poultry and swine industry, which is actively seeking
solutions to the problems associated with animal waste material. We
have been particularly interested in proposals that will convert a
variety of animal waste products into a usable energy resource.
Several innovative North Carolina constituents are moving forward
with the development of this technology, and I want to make sure that
the Federal Government is both aware of and supportive of these
efforts. I appreciate the willingness of the managers of the bill to
show an interest in this work, and I will be grateful for their
continued attention to this research.
I look forward to working with Senator Edwards, my fellow members of
the Senate Agriculture Committee, and the appropriators to make sure
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the authorization and
resources needed to support innovative use of animal waste.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Senator Helms and I are excited about the
alternative uses of animal waste products, and I appreciate the
attention

[[Page S11084]]

this issue is receiving from the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee. There has been a great deal of attention paid to the
problems associated with animal waste, but very little has been said
about the work taking place in the private sector and our research
educational institutions to try and deal with this problem.
I agree that there is reason to be optimistic that technological
advances will yield innovative solutions that will benefit poultry and
swine producers, the environment, and ultimately, energy consumers. We
will look forward to continuing to support additional research into
alternative animal waste uses, and I appreciate the interest of the
managers.
Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senators from North Carolina letting us
know of the interesting work taking place in North Carolina in regard
to animal waste research. We will continue to work with Senator Helms
and Senator Edwards to explore the potential of alternative energy
sources.
Mr. COCHRAN. I also look forward to working with the Senators from
North Carolina as this technology develops.

rural facilities program

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee.
The Village of DeTour in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is living
with an unfortunate safety hazard. Currently, the Village of DeTour is
using a World War II era fire engine to fight fires within its
jurisdiction. This antiquated fire engine is so old that safety
personnel can no longer drive it to emergency situations. Instead,
firefighters must tow the fire engine to any dangerous area. This
represents a tremendous safety hazard for the hard working people of
this unique Upper Peninsula town.
The Rural Facilities Program at USDA provides funding for rural
communities like DeTour to improve their public facilities, including
providing money for new fire equipment.
Therefore, I would ask the distinguished chairman if he would agree
to include the Village of DeTour in the statement of managers
accompanying the conference report to this appropriations bill, and
list the purchase of a new fire truck as a high priority project that
deserves funding in fiscal year 2002?
Mr. KOHL. I will do everything I can to include the Village of DeTour
in the statement of managers as a high priority project worthy of
funding in fiscal year 2002.
Mr. COCHRAN. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished
subcommittee chairman.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their
strong support. This community needs only $80,000 next year to purchase
this new vehicle. Since the village has already raised the required
matching funds necessary, once it receives this $80,000 it will be able
to move forward immediately on the project. Will the chairman and
ranking member continue their strong support for this project until the
Village receives this necessary funding?
Mr. KOHL. I reiterate my strong support for this project and will
work in conference and will work with the USDA to make sure this
community receives this $80,000 in fiscal year 2002.
Mr. COCHRAN. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished
subcommittee chairman.

audubon sugar institute

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for a
project close to the heart of the Louisiana State University AgCenter
as well as many of my consitutents--the Audubon Sugar Institute. I want
take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the chairman of the
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee the importance of
relocating the Audubon Sugar Institute from LSU main campus to St.
Gabriel Sugar Research Station as well as the need to encourage USDA
Rural Development to give priority consideration to this very
worthwhile project.
Sugarcane is the largest economic crop in Louisiana with a gross farm
income in 2000 of just under $363 million. Sugar and sugarcane research
and extension education at the LSU AgCenter are conducted at the St.
Gabriel Sugar Research Station, approximately 7 miles south of the LSU
main campus and the Audubon Sugar Institute in the heart of the main
campus. The Audubon Sugar Institute has a long history and a proud
tradition of educating some of the finest sugar technologies and sugar
engineers in the country. In the past, it drew many people to
Louisiana, and earmarked the LSU AgCenter as a center for excellence in
the sugar industry. However, the need to improve and upgrade the
Audubon Sugar Institute is critical to furthering the Louisiana Sugar
Industry.
The first step in accomplishing the goals mentioned above is to move
the Audubon Sugar Institute from the heart of the main LSU campus to
the St. Gabriel Sugar Research Station. The LSU AgCenter is requesting
assistance from the USDA Office of Rural Development.
The equipment and laboratories at Audubon Sugar Institute are in dire
need of upgrading and the building itself is in serious arrears and
does not conform to safety regulations. It appears that it is no longer
an option to run the factory continuously because of the environmental
implications of running a sugar factory in the middle of a busy
university campus. Relocating the Institute has the advantage of
meeting the main campus at the same time providing the option of
updating the Audubon Sugar Institute archaic design and providing a
modern facility capable of handling billeted cane. It also places
Audubon adjacent to the variety development and production research
going on at the St. Gabriel Sugar Station. Building a new facility and
moving the sugar mill to St. Gabriel would allow the Institute to
function as a training ground and undertake manageable plant scale
experiments. Having a fully functional small mill operation at Aubudon
Sugar Institute would provide a facility unsurpassed in the world and
immensely assist the sugarcane industry in Louisiana.
I thank the chairman and his staff for their consideration and
reiterate that it is my hope that the USDA Rural Development can be
encouraged to give priority consideration to this very worthwhile
project.
Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Louisiana and
will make every effort to accommodate her request during the conference
of this bill.

idaho oust problem

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman Kohl
and Senator Cochran for the hard work they have put into the fiscal
year 2002 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a
challenging process, and they have done an excellent job balancing
competing interests within the confines of a balanced budget.
I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and
ranking member of the subcommittee regarding a situation that has
arisen in Idaho. The Idaho delegation is concerned over the growing
impact a product called OUST has had on crops in fields near the Bureau
of Land Management's rangeland treatment areas.
The BLM has been using OUST as part of their rehabilitation program
to eliminate cheatgrass and stop the fire cycle. The program is two-
fold. First spray, then plant native and perineal vegetation which is
better feed for cattle and fire suppression. From October 23 to
November 3, 2000, in order to control the spread of cheatgrass on their
burned land, the Bureau of Land Management sprayed the herbicide, OUST,
from a helicopter onto approximately 17,000 acres of their land.
This spring, we began to receive reports from farmers that OUST may
have spread beyond its intended use area and may be impacting crops in
fields adjacent to or near the BLM's treated areas. Sugar beet growers
noticed strange growth developments in their crops. As the crop
developed, it was determined the lack of growth could be related to the
OUST spray. What our farmers project happened is the OUST, which is
activated and broken down by water, was sprayed on top of the ashes
from the fire. With the lack of snowfall and spring rains, the OUST was
blown with the ashes to as far as 10 miles from the sprayed ground.
When the farmers turned on their irrigation systems this spring, it
activated the OUST and it is now damaging the crops. The most
significant

[[Page S11085]]

damage reported is in the Burley/Paul area and the American Falls/
Aberdeen area in Southern Idaho. Because of all of the uncertainty, BLM
has agreed to stop the use of OUST until this issue is resolved.
Since the damage was first noticed, testing by the Department of
Agriculture in Idaho has indicated the presence of OUST in crops at
least 5 miles beyond the BLM's treated areas. Those tests are ongoing
and results continue to show the presence of OUST in damaged crops.
According to the information we have seen, in some cases the damage to
crops in these areas approaches a 100 percent loss. In other cases,
crops are only partially impacted, but may still be damaged in terms of
their value. In either case, farmers are facing over $100 million in
reduced income. The whole extent of the problem will not be known until
later because some crop types will not show damage until further in the
season. Unfortunately, the projected losses these producers may incur
as a result of OUST are only compounded by the ongoing drought, high
energy costs, and low crop prices.
Mr. CRAPO. I join Senator Craig in acknowledging Chairman Kohl's and
Senator Cochran's hard work on this bill and in expressing my deep
concerns for the farmers of southern Idaho.
Senator Craig has provided a good background on the issue and the
problem. I will only add that while the final impact of the OUST
contamination is unknown, we do know many Idaho producers will be
affected. With the difficulties agriculture is already facing, high
input costs, low product prices, and a shortage of water, the losses
due to this contamination could be devastating.
Credible scientific data is being established to measure the extent
of the damage. I look forward to working with the administration and my
colleagues to address the needs of southern Idaho farmers.
Mr. KOHL. I commend the Senators for their interest in this program.
I want to assure the gentlemen that it is the committee's belief that
the Secretary of Interior should continue to work closely with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Idaho's
agriculture producers, and the Idaho delegation to facilitate the
timely flow of information and a coordinated response to this problem.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleagues from Idaho for bringing this issue
to the subcommittee's attention. I look forward to working with them
and the chairman on this issue.

csrees

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Johnson for helping me
secure $700,000 through CSREES in this bill for South Dakota State
University to continue the planning and development of a bio-based
energy and product initiative that will be of major significance to the
nation's ability to efficiently produce renewable fuels, as well as to
the future viability of rural America and the agriculture community.
Senator Johnson and I have been working with SDSU to develop a concept
called the ``Sun Grant Initiative,'' which would become a national
network of land grant universities in partnership with USDA and DOE,
dedicated not only to the development of cost-effective biobased energy
and nonfood product production, but also to the disbursement of new
technology, and integration in rural communities on a scale that
fosters economic independence and growth. The $700,000 dedicated for
feedstock conversion in this bill will allow us to move forward with
this important project.
Mr. JOHNSON. I also thank Chairman Kohl for his help with this
project. Agriculture has much to contribute to the nation's energy
security, and can make significant contributions to markets for nonfood
producers as well. This biobased shift would reduce our reliance on
petroleum-based products and provide significant economic opportunities
for independent farm families and rural communities. These funds will
help make this a reality, and I am hopeful that USDA will release the
funds as quickly as possible after enactment of this legislation so the
planning of this exciting initiative can continue in a timely manner.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senators and look forward to seeing this
project develop.

potato study

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator
Cochran for the hard work they have put into the fiscal year 2001
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an excellent job
balancing competing interests within the confines of a balanced budget.
I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee regarding the appropriation for the Department of
Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service. The committee
has provided a $13.3 million increase in the budget for NASS. I would
like to clarify with the chairman and ranking member that the increase
provides $125,000 to conduct a potato objective yield, size and grade
survey.
NASS has developed a plan to conduct a potato size and grade survey
for the seven major potato producing States. The intent of the survey
is to provide all market participants with comprehensive potato size
and grade data. These data are crucial information to both potato
growers and buyers in estimating the current potato crop's quality. All
involved market parties will use this unbiased information when
negotiating sale or purchase contracts of processing potatoes. The
National Potato Council, which represents all segments of the potato
industry, has identified that these data are imperative to the orderly
marketing of the annual potato crop. These data also ensure that no one
group uses their market position to distort the true picture of annual
crop quality. The size and grade data will complement the annual
production data already provided by NASS and supply the necessary
information for the orderly marketing of the potato crop.
Mr. KOHL. The Senator has correctly stated the intent of the
committee. The size and grade survey will be conducted in the seven
major producing States in conjunction with the current potato objective
yield survey. The seven states are Idaho, Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. These funds are needed to obtain
statistically defensible potato size and grade date, and the sample
size. This amount includes equipment, supplies, training, and personnel
needs to conduct, analysis, and publish the survey data and add the
additional objective yield samples required.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for his support on this issue.

FDA FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY'S PHYSICAL SCIENCE
LABORATORY

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
Senator Kohl, for all his fine work on this bill. I know his task has
not been an easy one, and he and his staff are to be complimented for
the very thoughtful and fair way they have worked to complete this
legislation.
I also thank the chairman for including in the bill second-year
funding for the Food and Drug Administration to continue its contract
with New Mexico State University's Physical Science Laboratory to
develop and evaluate rapid screening methods, instruments, and analyses
that will facilitate FDA's regulation of imported food products. As I
requested, the committee's bill continues funding for PSL's Agriculture
Products Food Safety Laboratory at the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.5
million.
I understand FDA and PSL have completed all the necessary agreements
and work is already underway. Equipment has been ordered and lab staff
is being hired. One of the first tasks will be an independent
evaluation of biosensors for microbial contamination to ensure the
equipment is accurate and dependable. If the reliability of the new
biosensors can be verified they could replace the much slower testing
protocols FDA currently uses.
Does the chairman agree that PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety
Laboratory is supporting FDA's efforts to develop quick and safe food
inspection systems that can detect filth, microbial contamination, and
pesticides on fresh fruits and vegetables and the FDA should continue
this work at PSL is fiscal year 2001?

[[Page S11086]]

Mr. KOHL. Yes, I agree that PSL is helping support FDA's food safety
program, and I was pleased to include second-year funding for PSL from
the total sum appropriated to FDA for food safety and other
initiatives.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I also call Chairman Kohl's attention to the potential
to broaden PSL's efforts, within the existing funding and framework, to
include evaluations of technologies and methods for testing
agricultural products for microbial contamination as well as
contamination from pesticides, chemical and biological agents, evidence
of tampering, or possible acts of bioterrorism. In addition to fruits
and vegetables, the expanded scope of testing technologies might
include other food products as well as illicit or counterfeit products
and pharmaceuticals that could present hazards to public health and
safety.
I understand FDA is responsible for wide variety of product safety
initiatives, including bioterrorism, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and
so forth. I do believe the availability of a testing and verification
laboratory, such as PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety Laboratory,
could be of great value in FDA's continuing effort to combat illicit
products and health hazards.
Is the chairman aware of these additional capabilities at PSL that
could be used by FDA to evaluate a wider variety of testing
technologies and does he agree that it would be appropriate for FDA to
consider this broader scope of effort at PSL within the funding level
already provided in the bill?
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for bringing these
additional capabilities at PSL to my attention. I agree that the
Commissioner should consider broadening the scope of the effort beyond
microbial analyses of imported fruits and vegetables to include other
products and contaminants under FDA's purview.
Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kohl for his support of
continued funding for PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety Laboratory
and for considering broadening the scope of the laboratory. The House
bill does not include second-year funding for the food safely
laboratory at New Mexico State, and I look forward to working with the
chairman to ensure the Senate's funding level is included in the
conference report.

tropical and subtropical agricultural research

Mr. INOUYE. Will the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee yield?
Mr. KOHL. I yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding. As the chairman knows,
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee has a long history of
support for tropical and subtropical agricultural research due to the
limited transferability of agricultural research from the temperate
zones of the United States. This reasoning has been most evident in
congressional support for the establishment of the Pacific Basin
Agricultural Research Center.
The Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center is a welcome addition
to the tropical and subtropical agricultural research community in
Hawaii and the American Pacific. The increased scientific and technical
capacity offered by this center is a significant and vital complement
to other institutions in the region. The center's mission of
contributing to the region's scientific knowledge base on tropical and
subtropical organisms strengthens the foundation for a competitive,
diversified agricultural industry in the region.
In addition to construction funds for this center, the success of the
center is also contingent upon its ability to recruit and deploy
scientists and technicians at a rate consistent with completion of
construction, and its ability to work in concert with the agricultural
research and technology transfer infrastructure at the University of
Hawaii at Hilo and the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For these
purposes, $900,000 is needed. Of this total, $600,000 has been provided
and I recommend that the additional $300,000 be derived from an
internal reallocation of funds provided to the University of Hawaii for
two other USDA-ARS projects, Non-toxic Control of Tephritid and Other
Insects and Environmental Effects of Tephritid Fruit Fly Control and
Eradication. This does not deny the importance of these two latter
projects but rather the higher priority of providing operating support
to assure the success of the center. With this internal shifting of
resources, a total of $900,000 would be available for the United States
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, of which $300,000 would be
available for the University of Hawaii at Hilo and $300,000 for the
University of Hawaii at Manoa for activities complementing the research
of the center.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his insight and
recommendation. I fully concur with his recommendation, because other
funds are internally available to ARS to minimize the impact of the
recommended internal reallocation of funds.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I also with to support the
recommendations from the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman and my colleague from Mississippi
for their support of my recommendation.

Sugar Beets

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to engage my neighbor and colleague
from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development and Related Agencies, and join my colleague, the senior
Senator from Minnesota, in a colloquy on an issue that is vitally
important to sugar beet growers in our state.
Last fall, five hundred fifty producers in the Southern Minnesota
Beet Sugar Cooperative of Renville, Minnesota, (SMBSC) experienced a
freeze of sugar beets. Over the next three months, it became
increasingly evident that a large share of the beets would have to be
discarded. The result is a catastrophic loss of revenue that has forced
these farmers into near bankruptcy.
Tragically, the private insurers of those losses have refused to
cover them, and the USDA has refused to provide sufficient funds for
relief. We are desperately trying to remedy these two travesties to
forestall the cooperative's complete collapse.
Now we are appealing to you and your colleagues on the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee as our last possible remedy. We ask that
you give these farmers your favorable consideration as you negotiate
this bill in conference.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree with the statement of my colleague from
Minnesota and would like to join him in underscoring the urgency of
this funding for the sugar beet growers in Minnesota. As my colleague
has recognized the five hundred fifty producer members of the Southern
Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative in Renville, Minnesota experienced a
freeze of sugar beets while still in the ground during the early stage
of their annual harvest. The cooperative continued with their harvest,
with the goal of extracting as much of the crop's value from the
market, while knowing that federally subsidized crop insurance would
likely cover losses that which were not harvested.
Unfortunately these growers are now having difficulty claiming due
compensation under the Quality Loss Program authorized in last year's
Agriculture Appropriations bill. While USDA has offered to settle
disaster assistance claims, their offer falls dangerously short,
jeopardizing hundreds of family farmers and the local economy. The
growers have presented USDA with information to justify a disaster
payment of $31 million, but USDA has rejected this argument.
It is now clear that additional assistance from Congress is needed to
secure the continued operation of hundreds of family farms in and
around Renville, Minnesota. I ask the Chairman, Senator Kohl, if he
agrees that additional assistance is necessary, in this Agriculture
Appropriations Bill, to ensure the continued viability of the Southern
Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and its five hundred fifty member
growers?
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton and
Senator Wellstone. Both of you are strong advocates for farmers, and in
particular the sugar beet growers in Minnesota. I am committed to
secure a level of assistance that can ensure the survival of the
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop, for another year.

[[Page S11087]]

GRAND FORKS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the expansion efforts of
the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center in Grand Forks, ND.
This facility, which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), has been a national and
international leader in mineral nutrition research for more than 30
years. In 1995, legislative authority was granted to the center to
purchase four city lots to expand its operation. Since then, three lots
have been acquired and are being used by the facility. The ARS was not
able to purchase the fourth lot at the same time because the owner of
an adjacent lot was not prepared to sell.
Recently, the owner of the fourth lot decided to sell his property.
This is timely, because the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center recently
acquired a mobile research laboratory with funds this bill provided
last year to conduct nutritional studies of underserved populations
such as Native Americans and the rural elderly. This vehicle needs to
be stored in a secure, climate-controlled garage. There is currently no
storage facility in Grand Forks appropriate to store this mobile lab,
but one could be erected on this adjacent property.
It would take no appropriation of additional funds for the Grand
Forks Human Nutrition Center to purchase this lot. The facility merely
needs a reprogramming of funds, and as a member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, I support this request. It is my
understanding that the ARS Area Director, as well as ARS headquarters,
support allowing the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center to spend its
funds to purchase this lot. In conference, it is my hope that we can
provide direction in the statement of managers allowing this
reprogramming to move forward. I would like to solicit the support of
the leaders of the subcommittee for this purpose.
Mr. KOHL. I understand the reasons why the Grand Forks Human
Nutrition Center wants to purchase this land, and I will work to
satisfy the request from the Senator from North Dakota to include a
statement of managers in the conference report to allow the
reprogramming of funds for this purpose.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget
Committee's official scoring for S. 1191, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
The Senate bill provides $16.137 billion in discretionary budget
authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $11.863 billion.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account,
discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $16.107 billion in
2002. The Senate bill is within its section 302(b) allocation for
budget authority and outlays. In addition, the committee once again has
met its target without the use of any emergency designations.
I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as
Senators Kohl and Cochran, for their bipartisan effort in moving this
and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in
this year's appropriations process. The tragic events of September 11
demand that this bipartisanship continue and that the Congress
expeditiously complete work on the 13 regular appropriations bills for
2002.
I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget
Committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1191, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISON--
SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget Authority............... 16,137 43,112 59,249
Outlays........................ 16,107 33,847 49,954
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............... 16,137 43,112 59,249
Outlays........................ 16,107 33,847 49,954
House-passed:
Budget Authority............... 15,668 43,112 58,780
Outlays........................ 16,044 33,847 49,891
President's request:
Budget Authority............... 15,399 43,112 58,511
Outlays........................ 15,789 33,847 49,636

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:

Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............... 0 0 0
Outlays........................ 0 0 0
House-passed:
Budget Authority............... 469 0 469
Outlays........................ 63 0 63
President's request:
Budget Authority............... 738 0 738
Outlays........................ 318 0 318
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the Senate-
reported bill to the Senate 302(b) allocation.

Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, recent events have demonstrated that we
must reexamine our ability to respond to terrorism--including
biological and chemical attacks. One area we must safeguard against
such an attack is our food supply, which is woefully underprotected.
For instance FDA is so short of inspectors that it currently inspects
less than 1 percent of imports. That is why this spring, even before
the recent attacks, the Senate passed an amendment that I offered to
increase the fiscal year 2002 budget allocation to expand the number of
food safety inspectors.
While the House stripped this provision out in conference, the need
for such an increase has only become more urgent, not less. That is why
I filed this amendment, to add $100 million for food safety inspection.
FDA presently has only about 700 to 800 inspectors to oversee food
imports and investigate the 57,000 sites within its jurisdiction across
the country. They are so understaffed that they currently are only able
to inspect commercial food sites about once every decade on average.
An increase of $100 million for food inspection activities at FDA,
factored into the baseline over 5 years, would allow FDA to increase
import inspections from less than 1 percent to roughly 20 percent.
I understand that this needed increase in FDA inspection resources is
being resolved in other contexts, in the bioterrorism package that is
being worked out, or even in the debate about resources available in
the stimulus package.
On that understanding, I withdraw my amendment today seeking to add
$100 million to FDA's food inspection authorities, and look forward to
confirming food safety inspection resources in those other contexts.
Terrorists aim to strike terror among civilians, in their homes, in
their everyday lives, and that is why we must protect the security of
our dinner tables and our families through increased inspection and
greater vigilance.
And since this is the Agriculture appropriations bill, I just want to
once again remind my colleagues that agriculture is the number one
industry in New York--and we plan to keep it that way.
Our farmers--like so many others around the country--are some of the
most dedicated, most decent, most hard-working people in this country.
Our farmers are an integral part of our heritage. And they are out
there every day, working to put fresh, healthy, and safe food on our
tables.
Our farmers are also some of the finest stewards of our natural
resources. They help to preserve open space, and they work to properly
manage and protect our land and our water.
And our farmers are some of our most innovative, resourceful small
business people.
But our farmers need our help--at least I know they do in New York.
As I travel around New York, I meet so many farmers who are struggling
just to get by, just to make ends meet.
And that is why I want to thank Chairman Kohl, Senator Levin, Senator
Snowe, and my other colleagues for working to help provide much needed
assistance for our apple growers. I was pleased to hear Chairman Kohl's
words earlier today about working this out in conference.
And I hope that I can continue to work with my colleagues to increase
assistance for specialty crops and for conservation programs like the
Farmland Protection Program.
These conservation programs are important programs not just for our
environment, but for our farmers--particularly for those farmers that
are under-served by the more traditional payment programs. And these
conservation programs are all over-subscribed, meaning there are more
farmers that want to participate in these programs than there are
resources available to accommodate.

[[Page S11088]]

And, or course, we want to assist our dairy farmers by reinstituting
the dairy compact.
So, I want to again express my strong support for our Nation's
farmers, and reiterate my commitment to ensuring that New York's
farmers have the support they need and deserves.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
I thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Kohl, and my
good friend and distinguished ranking member, Senator Cochran, for
including $750,000 in the bill to allow the National Center for Genome
Resources in Santa Fe, NM, to proceed to establish a Bioinformatics
Institute for Model Plant Species. This program was authorized through
an amendment that I sponsored to the Agriculture Risk Protection Act,
Public Law 106-224. The final language in Section 227 of that Act
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Agricultural Research Service, to enter into a cooperative agreement
with the National Center for Genome Resources in Santa Fe, NM, and
university partners to establish and operate the Bioinformatics
Institute for Model Plant Species. An amount of $3 million was
specifically authorized to establish the Institute, and such sums as
may be necessary is authorized for each subsequent fiscal year to carry
out the cooperative agreement. The Center is pleased to work with both
New Mexico State University and Iowa State University in this
bioinformatics initiative.
I strongly urge the Senate conferees to retain this funding in
conference with the House. The initial appropriation of $750,000 in the
Senate bill will allow the National Center for Genome Resources to
build upon its existing programs to create and develop software tools
to transfer information and conduct comparative analyses among model
plant and crop species. The Center, in establishing the Institute, will
develop a bioinformatics infrastructure to improve the accessibility
and facilitate the transfer of information on structural and functional
genome information from model plants to crop species. The Institute
will work with university partners at New Mexico State University and
Iowa State University to expand and link existing genomic and genome
database research from the Agricultural Research Service allowing
researchers to discover, characterize, and manipulate agronomically
important genes of major crops, including soybeans, alfalfa, maize, and
cotton. As a non-profit entity, the National Center for Genome
Resources provides its research to the public domain to improve the
productivity and nutritional value of agricultural crops grown in the
United States.
I am pleased to work with the Appropriations Committee to advance a
project that holds the promise of improving agricultural crop quality,
nutrition, and production.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Kohl, chairman of the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Cochran, ranking
member, for presenting to the Senate the fiscal year 2002
appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
This bill provides $73.9 billion in new budget authority for both
mandatory and discretionary programs under the subcommittee's
jurisdiction and is within the 302(b) allocation. This is a good bill
and deserves the support of all Senators.
This bill includes programs important to the farming community and to
all Americans. This bill supports agriculture research and conservation
programs that protect our soil, water, and air resources. This bill
also supports rural communities through economic development programs
and assistance for basic needs such as housing, electricity, safe
drinking water and waste disposal systems.
This bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration
which helps protect the safety of our food supply and helps make lower
cost medications available to Americans as quickly as possible. In
addition, funding in this bill supports many nutrition and public
health related programs. These include the Food Stamp, School Lunch,
and other nutrition assistance programs such as the Women, Infants, and
Children Program--WIC.
This bill provides $2.794 billion for rural development programs.
This is an increase of $318 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. Of
this amount, slightly more than $1 billion is for the Rural Community
Advancement Program, which includes the rural water and waste water
loan and grants program, and is an increase of $243 million from last
year's level.
This bill also provides funding to support activities that promote
animal welfare. At my request, the bill includes increased funding to
deal with the problem of animal cruelty. The bill includes $13,767,000
for animal welfare inspectors, an increase of $1,627,000 above last
year's level. This bill also includes $8,101,000 for regulatory and
enforcement activities in connection with animal welfare
investigations, which is an increase of $1,852,000 above last year's
level. This increased funding builds on my $3 million initiative that I
included in the FY 2001 supplemental to improve the enforcement of the
Animal Welfare Act and the enforcement of humane slaughter practices.
Together, these programs, and others in this bill, will work to help
meet the expectation of the American people that animals, whether as an
integral element of our nation's livestock industry, or in other
aspects, will be treated properly and humanely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in anticipation of getting this bill done
shortly, I want to thank the Senate for cooperating and moving this
bill so quickly and efficiently. I especially want to thank Senator
Cochran. His knowledge of this bill, and its many complicated issues,
is unsurpassed. His evenhanded, bipartisan approach to legislating are
the key reasons we have such a good product in the Senate Agriculture
appropriations bill.
I also want to thank his fine and dedicated staff--Rebecca Davies,
Martha Scott Poindexter, and Rachelle Schroder. All of our staff have
had to operate in very difficult conditions these last few weeks, but
you wouldn't know it from the fine quality of their work. Senators talk
often about keeping the work of the Nation going here in the Senate,
but it is these dedicated staff people who do the work that makes us
look good--even if it means operating out of cardboard boxes and back
basement rooms, without computers, telephones, or even windows.
I also want to thank the members of my staff who have worked on this
bill: Ben Miller, my agriculture LA, who handles issue as diverse as
satellites and sugar beets with the same skill and good humor. Paul
Bock, my chief of staff, who is an essential part of anything that goes
well in our office. Les Spivey, Jessica Arden, and Dan Daggert, who
have labored all year to bring this bill to the floor.
And last, but certainly not least, Galen Fountain, the Agriculture
Appropriations clerk. His knowledge and skill are exemplary, even
legendary in the Senate. He has done everything in getting this bill
together, from working out countless amendments to writing up my
comprehensive opening statement. I firmly believe that, without him, we
would have no Agriculture appropriations bill.
Mr. President, I again thank the Senate for its help in moving this
bill.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the only
amendment in order prior to third reading be the managers' amendment.
The managers' amendment will have to be cleared by both managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, is recognized.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I'd like to add my voice to those in
Congress who think that we should take action on a farm bill this year.

[[Page S11089]]

We need to act now for several reasons. First, the House took action
on the farm bill in expeditious fashion and passed it faster than most
folks expected. I know many Senators--including this one--were
surprised and impressed by Chairman Combest's pace in completing his
bill.
This quick action led many in the industry to believe that we would
have a new farm bill this year that they could plan around. The result
in Georgia has been industry reactions detrimental to growers. Georgia
peanut shellers, in anticipation of a new program, have make market
decisions which could result in record area pool losses, which by law
the growers themselves have to cover. A new farm bill could avert this
problem.
Our Nation's newly discovered economic woes have been on the farm for
some time now. Rural America always feels these pressures much sooner
and longer than other segments of society. Commodity prices have not
improved, input costs are still sky high and morale among farmers is
the lowest I have seen it in my career in public service. Fewer and
fewer young people want to take over the family farm and continue this
honorable way of life. We all want to stimulate the economy, I have a
great place for us to start--on our farms. The stimulus coming from a
new farm bill would not only be only felt in tractor, chemical and
irrigation sales. It would filter into the local banks, car
dealerships, restaurants and department stores. This is why I hope the
Administration will get behind the effort to write a farm bill before
we adjourn for the year.
Also, I want to act this year because of the budget ramifications. We
fought hard during consideration of our current budget resolution to
obtain nearly $74 billion extra which is necessary to meet our long
term obligations to American farmers. It would also prevent us from
having to pass emergency relief bills, as has been the case over the
last few years. I am concerned that this money may not be there for us
next year. If OMB's reaction to the House bill is any indicator, we
have every reason to be worried.
From all indications, we have only a few weeks left in this session
and many pressing issues such as appropriations matters and the war on
terrorism. But I want to send a clear message to my colleagues--put me
in the camp that says let's act now on the farm bill.
Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1988 through 2016, En Bloc

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent the managers' amendment be
considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate vote on passage
of the bill, and, upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment,
requesting a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the
part of the Senate, with no intervening action or debate.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, has the
amendment been sent to the desk?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is at the desk.
Mr. BYRD. Has the amendment been read?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Mr. BYRD. Could the clerk state the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr.
Cochran, proposes amendments numbered 1988 through 2016, en
bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 1988

On page 78, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. . SUGAR MARKETING ASSESSMENT.

Notwithstanding subsection (f) of section 156 of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(f)), any
assessment imposed under that subsection for marketings of
raw cane sugar or beet sugar for the 2002 fiscal year shall
not be required to be remitted to the Commodity Credit
Corporation before September 2, 2002.
____

Amendment No. 1989

On page 78, after line 2, insert the following new section:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, shall provide financial
assistance from available funds from the Emergency Watershed
Protection Program in Arkansas, in an amount not to exceed
$0.4 million for completion of the current construction phase
of the Kuhn Bayou (Point Remove) Project.''
____

amendment no. 1990

(Purpose: To provide funding for rural development)

Strike section 740 and insert the following new section:
``Sec. 740. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$3,000,000 shall be made available from funds under the rural
business and cooperative development programs of the Rural
Community Advancement Program for a grant for an integrated
ethanol plant, feedlot, and animal waste digestion unit, to
the extent matching funds from the Department of Energy are
provided if a commitment for such matching funds is made
prior to July 1, 2002: Provided, That such funds shall be
released to the project after the farmer-owned cooperative
equity is in place, and a formally executed commitment from a
qualified lender based upon receipt of necessary permits,
contract, and other appropriate documentation has been
secured by the project.''
____

amendment no. 1991

At the appropriate place in Title VIII, insert the
following:
Sec. . (a) Temporary Use of Existing Payments to States
Table.--
Notwithstanding section 101(a)(1) of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note), for the purpose of making
the first fiscal year's payments under section 102 of such
Act to eligible States and eligible counties, the full
payment amount for each eligible State and eligible county
shall be deemed to be equal to the full payment amount
calculated for that eligible state or eligible county in the
Forest Service document entitled ``P.L. 106-393, Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act'', dated July
31, 2001.
(b) Revision of Table.--For the purpose of making payments
under section 102 of such Act to eligible States and eligible
counties of subsequent fiscal years, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall provide for the revision of the table
referred to in subsection (a) to accurately reflect the
average of the three highest 25-percent payments and safety
net payments made to eligible States for the fiscal years of
the eligibility period, as required by section 101(a)(1) of
such Act. If the revisions are not completed by the time
payments under section 102 of such Act are due to be made for
a subsequent fiscal year, the table referred to in subsection
(a) shall again be used for the purpose of making the
payments for that fiscal year. The Forest Service shall
provide the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and
the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee with a
report on the progress of the correction by March 1, 2002.
(c) Additional Opt-Out Option.--Notwithstanding section
102(b)(2) of P.L. 106-393, if the revision of the table
referred to in subsection (a) results in a lower full payment
amount to a country that has elected under section 102(a)(2)
the full payment amount, then that county may revisit their
election under section 102(b)(1).
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``eligible
State'', ``eligible county'', ``eligibility period'', ``25-
period payment'', and ``safety net payments'' have the
meanings given such terms in sections 3 of such Act.
(e) Treatment of Certain Mineral Leasing Receipts.--An
eligible county that elects under section 102(b) to receive
its share of an eligible State's full payment amount shall
continue to receive its share of any payments made to that
State from a lease for mineral resources issued by the
Secretary of Interior under the last paragraph under the
heading `FOREST SERVICE' in the Act of March 4, 1917 (Chapter
179; 16 U.S.C. 520).''
(f) Section 6(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired
Lands (30 U.S.C. 355(b)) is amended by inserting after the
first sentence the following new sentence: ``The preceeding
sentence shall also apply to any payment to a State derived
from a lease for mineral resources issued by the Secretary of
the Interior under the last paragraph under the heading
`FOREST SERVICE' in the Act of March 4, 1917 (Chapter 179; 16
U.S.C. 520).''
____

AMENDMENT NO. 1992

(Purpose: To amend the definition of income in the Housing Act of 1949)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . ALASKA PERMANENT FUND.

Section 501(b) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471)
is amended in paragraph (5)--
(1) by striking ``(5)'' and inserting ``(5)(A)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) For purposes of this title, for fiscal years 2002 and
2003 the term ``income does not include dividends received
from the Alaska Permanent Fund by a person who was

[[Page S11090]]

under the age of 18 years when that person qualified for the
dividend.''.
____

amendment no. 1993

(Purpose: To support funding for 1890 land-grant institutions)

On page 13, line 18, strike beginning with ``$32,604,000''
all down through and including ``West Virginia'' on line 20
and insert in lieu thereof ``$34,604,000, of which $1,507,496
shall be made available only for the purpose of ensuring that
each institution shall receive no less than $1,000,000''.
On page 13, line 24, strike ``$137,000,000'' and insert
``$135,492,000''.
On page 17, line 13, strike beginning with ``$28,181,000''
all down through and including ``West Virginia'' on line 15
and insert in lieu thereof ``$31,181,000, of which $1,724,884
shall be made available only for the purpose of ensuring that
each institution shall receive no less than $1,000,000''.
On page 17, line 22, strike ``$15,021,000'' and insert
``$11,529,000''.
____

amendment no. 1994

(Purpose: To provide funding for the National 4-H Program Centennial
Initiative)

On page 16, line 11 strike ``$275,940,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof the following: ``$275,940,000, of which
$3,600,000 may be used to carry out Public Law 107-19''.
____

amendment no. 1995

On page 40, line 19, insert the following: ``: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated by this Act to the
Rural Community Advancement Program for guaranteed business
and industry loans, funds may be transferred to direct
business and industry loans as deemed necessary by the
Secretary and with prior approval of the Committee on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.''
____

amendment no. 1996

(Purpose: To increase reserves of the Food Stamps Program)

On page 52, line 17, strike ``$21,091,986,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$22,991,986,000''.
On page 52, line 18, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$2,000,000,000''.
____

amendment no. 1997

(Purpose: To strike a limitation relating to the Kyoto Protocol)

Strike section 727 and renumber subsequent sections as
appropriate.
____

amendment no. 1998

(Purpose: To make West Virginia State College at Institute, West
Virginia, an 1890 Institution)

On page 78, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. . Hereafter, any provision of any Act of Congress
relating to colleges and universities eligible to receive
funds under the Act of August 30, 1890, including Tuskegee
University, shall apply to West Virginia State College at
Institute, West Virginia: Provided, That the Secretary may
waive the matching funds' requirement under section 1449 of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222d) for fiscal year 2002 for
West Virginia State College if the Secretary determines the
State of West Virginia will be unlikely to satisfy the
matching requirement.
____

amendment no. 1999

(Purpose: To authorize a Natural Resources Conservation Service
watershed project)

On page 78, line 3, insert the following:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary, acting through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, shall provide financial and technical assistance to
the Tanana River bordering the Big Delta State Historical
Park.
____

amendment no. 2000

(Purpose: To restrict the importation of certain fish and fish
products)

On page 78, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act to the Food and Drug Administration
shall be used to allow admission of fish or fish products
labeled wholly or in part as ``catfish'' unless the products
are taxonomically from the family Ictaluridae.
____

amendment no. 2001

At the appropriate place, insert:
Sec. . The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to
accept any unused funds transferred to the Alaska Railroad
Corporation for avalanche control and retransfer up to
$499,000 of such funds as a direct lump sum payment to the
City of Valdez to construct an avalanche control wall to
protect a public school.
____

amendment no. 2002

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of funds previously appropriated to the Bureau of
Land Management under the heading `Wildland Fire Management,'
up to $5,000,000 is transferred to the Department of
Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, for reimbursement for crop
damage resulting from the Bureau's use of herbicides in the
State of Idaho. Provided, that nothing in this section shall
be construed to constitute an admission of liability in any
subsequent litigation with respect to the Bureau's use of
such herbicides.
____

amendment no. 2003

(Purpose: To clarify that emerging vegetation in water may be enrolled
in the pilot program for enrollment of wetland and buffer acreage in
the conservation reserve)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . PILOT PROGRAM FOR ENROLLMENT OF WETLAND AND BUFFER
ACREAGE IN CONSERVATION RESERVE.

(a) In General.--Section 1231(h)(4)(B) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(h)(4)(B)) is amended by inserting
``(which may include emerging vegetation in water)'' after
``vegetative cover''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1232(a)(4) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(4)) is amended by
inserting ``(which may include emerging vegetation in
water)'' after ``vegetative cover''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2004

(Purpose: To provide assistance for certain specialty crops)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SPECIALTY CROPS.

(a) Grading of Price-Support Tobacco.--
(1) In general.--Not later than March 31, 2002, the
Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this section as the
``Secretary'') shall conduct a referendum among producers of
each kind of tobacco that is eligible for price support under
the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) to
determine whether the producers favor the mandatory grading
of the tobacco by the Secretary.
(2) Mandatory grading.--If the Secretary determines that
mandatory grading of each kind of tobacco described in
paragraph (1) is favored by a majority of the producers
voting in the referendum, effective for the 2002 and
subsequent marketing years, the Secretary shall ensure that
all kinds of the tobacco are graded at the time of sale.
(3) Judicial review.--A determination by the Secretary
under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial
review.
(b) Quota Reduction for Conservation Reserve Acreage.--
(1) In general.--Section 1236 of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3836) is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (a);
(B) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively;
(C) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
(D) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1232(a)(5) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(5)) is amended by
striking ``section 1236(d)'' and inserting ``section
1236(c)''.
(3) Application.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply beginning with the 2002 crop.
(c) Horse Breeder Loans.--
(1) Definition of horse breeder.--In this subsection, the
term ``horse breeder'' means a person that, as of the date of
enactment of this Act, derives more than 70 percent of the
income of the person from the business of breeding, boarding,
raising, training, or selling horses, during the shorter of--
(A) the 5-year period ending on January 1, 2001; or
(B) the period the person has been engaged in such
business.
(2) Loan authorization.--The Secretary shall make loans to
eligible horse breeders to assist the horse breeders for
losses suffered as a result of mare reproductive loss
syndrome.
(3) Eligibility.--A horse breeder shall be eligible for a
loan under this subsection if the Secretary determines that,
as a result of mare reproductive loss syndrome--
(A) during the period beginning January 1 and ending
October 1 of any of calendar years 2000, 2001, or 2002--
(i) 30 percent or more of the mares owned by the horse
breeder failed to conceive, miscarried, aborted, or otherwise
failed to produce a live healthy foal; or
(ii) 30 percent or more of the mares boarded on a farm
owned, operated, or leased by the horse breeder failed to
conceive, miscarried, aborted, or otherwise failed to produce
a live healthy foal;
(B) the horse breeder is unable to meet the financial
obligations, or pay the ordinary and necessary expenses, of
the horse breeder incurred in connection with breeding,
boarding, raising, training, or selling horses; and
(C) the horse breeder is not able to obtain sufficient
credit elsewhere, in accordance with subtitle C of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961 et
seq.).
(4) Amount.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amount of
a loan made to a horse breeder under this subsection shall be
determined by the Secretary on the basis of the amount of
losses suffered by the horse breeder, and the financial needs
of the horse breeder, as a result of mare reproductive loss
syndrome.
(B) Maximum amount.--The amount of a loan made to a horse
breeder under this subsection shall not exceed the maximum
amount of an emergency loan under section

[[Page S11091]]

324(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7
U.S.C. 1964(a)).
(5) Term.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term for
repayment of a loan made to a horse breeder under this
subsection shall be determined by the Secretary based on the
ability of the horse breeder to repay the loan.
(B) Maximum term.--The term of a loan made to a horse
breeder under this subsection shall not exceed 20 years.
(6) Interest rate.--The interest rate for a loan made to a
horse breeder under this subsection shall be the interest
rate for emergency loans prescribed under section 324(b)(1)
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1964(b)(1)).
(7) Security.--A loan to a horse breeder under this
subsection shall be made on the security required for
emergency loans under section 324(d) of the Consolidated Farm
and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1964(d)).
(8) Application.--To be eligible to obtain a loan under
this subsection, a horse breeder shall submit an application
for the loan to the Secretary not later than September 30,
2002.
(9) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out this subsection
using funds made available to make emergency loans under
subtitle C of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
(7 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.).
(10) Termination.--The authority provided by this
subsection to make a loan terminates effective September 30,
2003.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2005

(Purpose: To improve crop insurance coverage for sweet potatoes during
fiscal year 2002)

On page 78, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 7 . SWEET POTATO CROP INSURANCE.

During fiscal year 2002, subsection (a)(2) of section 508
of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) shall be
applied as though the term ``and potatoes'' read as follows:
``, potatoes, and sweet potatoes''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2006

(Purpose: To provide funds for repairs to the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center in the State of Maryland)

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

SEC. 7 . BELTSVILLE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER, MARYLAND.

Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall submit a reprogramming request
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to address
the $21.7 million in tornado damages incurred at the Henry A.
Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2007

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

SEC. . CITRUS CANKER ERADICATION.

(a) In General.--Section 810 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 1549A-52) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The'' and inserting
``Subject to subsection (e), the''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``2001'' and inserting
``2002''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments in subsection (a) shall
take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2001.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2008

At the appropriate place, insert:
Sec. . From the amount appropriated to the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, $300,000 shall be provided
to monitor and prevent Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome in
cooperation with the University of Kentucky.

amendment no. 2009

Amend section 306(a)(20) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(20)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Rural broadband.--The Secretary may make grants to
regulatory commissions in states with communities without
dial-up internet access to establish a competitively neutral
grant program to telecommunications carriers that establish
facilities and services which, in the commission's
determination, will result in the long-term availability to
rural communities in such state of affordable broadband
telecommunications services which can be used for the
provision of high speed internet access.''.
____

amendment no. 2010

On page 52, line 24 after the comma, strike ``not to'' and
all through page 53, line 2 up to the colon and insert the
following: ``not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be used to
purchase bison meat for the FDPIR from producer owned
cooperative organizations''.
____

amendment no. 2011

On page 10, line 24, strike ``$1,004,738,000'' and insert
``$999,438,000''.
On page 32, line 21, strike ``$802,454,000'' and insert
``$807,454,000''.
On page 33, line 20, after ``(16 U.S.C. 590e-2)'' insert
``: Provided further, That $5,000,000 shall be available to
carry out a pilot program in cooperation with the Department
of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to determine migratory
bird harvest, including population monitoring, harvest
information, and field operations''.
____

amendment no. 2012

(Purpose: To provide funding for the purchase of conservation easements
in the State of Kentucky)

On page 78, line 3, insert the following:
``Sec. . Of the funds made available to the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program for the State of Kentucky,
$490,000, and of the funds made available for competitive
research grants, $230,000, shall be made available to
purchase conservation easements or other interests in land to
not exceed 235 acres in Adair, Green and Taylor counties,
Kentucky in accordance with the Farmland Protection
Program.''
On page 13, line 24, strike ``$137,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof, ``$136,770,000''.
____

amendment no. 2013

(Purpose: To enhance FDA enforcement of the Dietary Supplement Health
and Education Act of 1994)

Amend page 57, line 7, by increasing the sum by $1 million;
and
Amend page 57, line 18, by increasing the sum by $1
million.
Amend page 60, line 22, by adding the following after the
word ``offices:'': Provided further: $1 million to the Center
for Food Safety and Nutrition to enhance enforcement of
requirements under the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act of 1994 related to the accuracy of product
labeling, and the truthfulness and substantiation of claims.
Amend page 30 line 4: reduce the figure by $1 million.
____

amendment no. 2014

(Purpose: To set aside funding for a generic drug public education
campaign)

On page 59, line 25, after the semicolon, insert ``and of
which not less than $500,000 shall be available for a generic
drug public education campaign;''.
____

amendment no. 2015

(Purpose: To provide a grant to Oklahoma State University to develop
chemical and biological sensors, including food safety sensors)

On page 13, line 21, of which $500,000 should be for a
grant for Oklahoma State University and its industrial
partners to develop chemical and biological sensors,
including chemical food safety sensors based on
microoptoelectronic devices and techniques (such as laser
diode absorption and cavity-ring-down spectroscopy with
active laser illumination);''.
On page 13, line 24, decrease the amount by $500,000.
____

amendment no. 2016

On page 13, line 24, decrease the amount by the amount by
$500,000.
On page 13, line 21, increase the amount by $500,000 and
insert ``of which $500,000 is for the Environmental
Biotechnology initiative at the University of Rhode Island''.

Amendment No. 1999

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the catfish industry in the United States
is being victimized by a fish product from Vietnam that is labeled as
farm-raised catfish. Since 1997, the volume of Vietnamese frozen fish
filets has increased from 500,000 pounds to over 7 million pounds per
year.
U.S. Catfish farm production, which is located primarily in
Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana, accounts for 50 percent
of the total value of all U.S. aquaculture production. Catfish farmers
in the Mississippi Delta region have spent $50 million to establish a
market for North American Catfish.
The Vietnamese fish industry is penetrating the United States fish
market by labeling fish products to create the impression they are
farm-raised catfish. The Vietnamese ``Basa'' fish that are being
imported from Vietnam are grown in cages along the Mekong River Delta.
Unlike other imported fish, Basa fish are imported as an intended
substitute for U.S. farm-raised catfish, and in some instances, their
product packaging imitates U.S brands and logos. this false labeling of
Vietnamese Basa fish is misleading American consumers at supermarkets
and restaurants.
According to a taxonomy analysis from the National Warmwater
Aquaculture Center, the Vietnamese Basa fish is not even of the same
family or species as the North American Channel Catfish.
This amendment will prevent the Food and Drug Administration from
allowing admission of fish or fish products not taxonomically in the
same family as North American farm-raised catfish. U.S. catfish farmers
have invested millions of dollars to develop a market for the North
American catfish. This amendment will help ensure that fish products
are properly identified so that consumers are not deceived by the
improper labeling.

[[Page S11092]]

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to support an amendment to
the fiscal 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill to address the
emergency needs of the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center (BARC) and ensure that the critical work done at this
world-renowned facility can carry on without delay.
In the early evening of September 24, BARC, the United States
Department of Agriculture's flagship research center, was severely
impacted by a tornado which had just ripped through the University of
Maryland College Park, killing two students and contributing to the
death of a volunteer firefighter. While thankfully none of the 500
employees working on BARC's stricken western campus were injured, the
facility itself sustained significant damage.
All 90 of BARC's greenhouses, housing innovative and important
research were damaged, with 40,000 square feet of greenhouse space
being totally destroyed and another 90,000 square feet receiving severe
to moderate damage. Each of the 15 major buildings on BARC's West-
campus suffered roof damage and many of these lost their windows,
leading to rain damage in laboratories and offices. In addition,
scientists lost over $3 million in equipment and reagents. In fact, in
one newly renovated building, hazardous chemical spills precluded
security windows against the rain or the use of emergency generators to
run freezers, exacerbating the loss of experimental materials. As a
result, critical research projects were set back from six months to as
much as three years.
On Monday, I toured the facility with BARC Director Dr. Phyllis
Johnson to see the tornado's damage firsthand. Nearly a month after
this disaster, the impact of the storm is still terribly evident.
My amendment directs the Secretary of Agriculture, within 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, to submit a reprogramming
request to address the $21.7 million in damages at BARC. The majority
of this funding, $12,250,000, will be used for greenhouse replacement
and repair. The remaining funds will contribute to a variety of
infrastructure needs, including roof repair, electrical and mechanical
systems repair, and replacement of critical lab equipment and reagents.
This funding is essential to allowing the scientists and researchers at
BARC to continue to carry on BARC's mission of conducting research to
develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high
national priority, including ensuring high-quality, safe food,
sustaining a competitive agricultural economy, and providing economic
opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as a whole.
In my view, it is critical that the staff at BARC have the tools and
facilities to be able to continue this vital mission, one that benefits
all Americans.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

amendment no. 2013

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for
the amendment that Senator Hatch and I are offering today.
The Harkin-Hatch amendment provides $1 million to Center for Food
Services and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration to
enhance enforcement of requirements under the Dietary Supplement Health
and Education Act related to the accuracy of product labeling and the
truthfulness and substantiation of claims.
This is an area of extreme importance to American consumers,
literally millions of whom regularly take dietary supplements to
maintain their health.
I was extremely proud to author the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act with Senator Hatch back in 1994. I think this law has
helped consumers reap the tremendous benefits of safe dietary
supplements that are doing to much so improve public health.
When we passed DSHEA unanimously, we noted that improving the health
status of American citizens ranked at the top of the government's
national priorities. Never was that statement more true.
Over the past decade, the importance of nutrition and the benefits of
dietary supplements to health promotion and disease prevention have
been documented increasingly in scientific studies.
And, we should not forget that healthy lifestyles, including proper
nutrition, can mitigate the need for expensive medical procedures.
Almost daily, we are seeing exciting new reports about the health
benefits that dietary supplements offer our citizens.
For example, a recent study showed that the specific combination of
vitamins C, E, and beta-carotene, and the minerals zinc and copper, can
slow age-related macular degeneration, an eye disease that afflicts
some eight million Americans and is a leading cause of visual
impairment, blindness, and loss of independence in those over age 65.
According to the Alliance for Aging Research, the U.S. currently
spends more than $26 billion annually in additional health care costs
for people over age 65 who lose their ability to live independently.
Obviously, slowing this loss of independence due to blindness for even
one year not only dramatically improves quality of life for the aging
population, but it can save the Federal government potentially billions
of dollars.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment as well,
and just wanted to follow up with a few comments on what Senator Harkin
has just said.
Seven years ago, my colleague from Iowa and I joined with then-
Representative Bill Richardson to enact this law, the Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act, that set up a rational, consumer-
friendly framework for the regulation of dietary supplements. Our
colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, joined us in this effort as the
original cosponsor of our bill.
Since that time, dietary supplements are being integrated more and
more into mainstream medicine, a fact of which I am proud.
By any measure, a majority of Americans regularly rely on dietary
supplements to enhance and maintain their healthy lifestyles. A study
by Prevention Magazine last year found that approximately 151 million
consumers currently take dietary supplement products. A study this year
found that the most common reason consumers use these vitamins,
minerals, herbs and amino acids is for overall health and general well-
being.
I am aware that an April, 2001, study from the Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism demonstrated that vitamin D and calcium
supplementation plays an important role in reducing systolic blood
pressure and maintaining thyroid hormone levels.
In addition, a January, 2001 Lancet article showed that patients with
knee osteo-arthritis who took glucosamine supplements reduced painful
and often disabling symptoms.
Not only are dietary supplements an essential component of a healthy
lifestyle, I believe, but they represent a vital industry in our
country as well. In my home state of Utah, the dietary supplement
industry has grown to an estimated $2 billion in annual sales; and one
estimate I have seen places the national level at $12 billion.
I thank the Senator for allowing me to add those compelling facts.
We have become increasingly alarmed over reports that unsafe or
mislabeled dietary supplement products are being marketed.
We have also been concerned about the increasing use of so-called
``performance-enhancing products'' by our youth. Many of these products
are being marketed as dietary supplements, although it is not clear
they fall within the legal definition of dietary supplement.
I think the Aging Committee, under the very capable leadership of
Senators John Breaux and Larry Craig, did us all a great service in
pointing up some of the areas where we need improvement.
Mr. HARKIN. There is no question that there are some problems here,
but I believe the majority of dietary supplements are upstanding
products that are safe and accurately labeled. What we hope to convince
our colleagues, though, is that problems in the marketplace are largely
a failure of enforcement, and not of the law.
I want to make clear to our colleagues that the bill we passed
unanimously in both houses--seven years ago--and I might add that the
Senate passed it unanimously, not once, but twice contains all the
tools the government needs to address these concerns, as we will
outline.

[[Page S11093]]

But just don't take my word for it. The Commissioner of Food and
Drugs in the Clinton Administration--Jane Henney, a physician who we
all respect a great deal--has assured the Congress on more than one
occasion that she believed the law provided her with adequate authority
to act against unsafe or mislabeled products. Commissioner Henney
assured me both publicly and privately that she was confident the law
is sufficient to allow the FDA to act against any bad actors in the
dietary supplement marketplace. It might be beneficial for us to review
some of the authorities that the FDA has.
First, the law allows the Food and Drug Administration to deem any
dietary supplement product adulterated if the label fails to list any
of the ingredients contained within and the quantities of those
ingredients. This provision is contained within section 403(s)(1) and
(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
If a product is adulterated, it cannot be legally sold. So, a
mislabeled dietary supplement product is, quite simply, illegal.
Mr. HATCH. Let me add one point. Many of us were disturbed over
reports that Olympic athletes or prospective Olympic athletes became
disqualified after they took ``banned substances" which were alleged to
have been dietary supplements that contained substances not listed on
the bottle.

I have no way of verifying those reports. What I can say is this. The
International Olympic Committee sets the rules for what products may be
taken by athletes. This is not a matter of U.S. law. If the IOC wanted
to ban orange juice, it is perfectly within its rights.
But, obviously, athletes--as with all consumers--should be able to
rest assured that they know what they are ingesting.
I was dismayed to read last week that the I.O.C. warned athletes to
avoid dietary supplements because of what it called ``lax quality
control and labeling.'' This is a situation that should not be
occurring, and our amendment today will help rectify that situation.
The law is not inadequate in this area. It provides consumers with
the assurance that they will know what they are buying. As the Senator
from Iowa just said, amendments to U.S. law made by DSHEA make explicit
that dietary supplement containers must be labeled accurately as to
their contents.
The principal way that the FDA enforces this provision is through its
Good Manufacturing Practice standards, or ``GMPs,'' which FDA
inspectors use to make certain that manufacturing plants adhere to
rigid guidelines for safe and sanitary processing of foods, including
dietary supplements.
Mr. HARKIN. Let me follow up on that. The second tool DSHEA provided
to FDA is the authority to promulgate new GMPs specifically for dietary
supplements. Those regulations have been in development for the past
several years, a source of great frustration to me and the Senator from
Utah as well.
We have written, called, and implored the Office of Management and
Budget and the Department of Health and Human Services to release these
regulations, which we understand have been ready in near-final form for
almost a year.
It is past time those regulations were issued.
Mr. HATCH. I want to add my strong concern about this as well. I
don't know what else we can do to free up these regulations. They are
an essential consumer protection of the law and they should be allowed
to go into effect.
Another concern we have heard is that there are products on the
market that are making false or misleading claims. That could be true
for any product regulated by the FDA, be it a drug, a cosmetic, a food,
or a medical device.
In fact, I recall vividly the 1993 hearing that the Labor and Human
Resources Committee held on dietary supplements. Then-Commissioner
David Kessler came up and testified for the FDA. He spread out a table-
full of products he believed made non-truthful claims. The reason I
remember this so well was that I was so angry the Commissioner had
brought this ``show and tell'' display to the Congress rather than take
action against the products.
The question I asked him then remains operative today. If the FDA
thinks there are products on the market that are inaccurately labeled,
then why doesn't it remove them from the market?
Mr. HARKIN. So that there was absolutely no question about the FDA's
authority in this area, during the debate on DSHEA we made clear that
the FDA maintained its ability to act against false and misleading
claims under section 343(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act. This is the third important tool FDA maintains to assure consumers
that they are taking safe and accurately labeled dietary supplement
products.
I worked very hard to make certain that we provided the FDA with
adequate authority in this area, but that we did not open up the
opportunity for the agency to twist and torture the law as they had
done in years past.
Mr. HATCH. Another concern related to the accuracy of claims is that
of the manufacturer's ability to substantiate the claims made. Health
claims made with respect to a product's ability to treat, mitigate or
cure disease must be pre-approved by the FDA under a ``significant
scientific agreement'' standard mandated by the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act (NLEA).
Claims not subject to this preapproval, that is, claims which
describe the product's effect on the structure or function of the body,
must be substantiated under the fourth tool we provided the FDA in
DSHEA. Under section 343(r)(6)(B) of the FFD&CA, manufacturers must be
able to substantiate the accuracy of their claims made. That is an
important consumer protection.
Mr. HARKIN. It is amazing to me, and a complete indication of how
little-enforced DSHEA is, that the FDA has apparently never invoked
this section of the law. We hope to correct that deficiency with our
amendment today.
Mr. HATCH. I mention another important consumer protection included
in the law. Questions have also been raised about the safety of
supplements in the marketplace. In DSHEA, we added a fifth tool to
FDA's arsenal--section 402(f)(1)(A), which deems that a dietary
supplement is adulterated if it presents a significant or unreasonable
risk of illness or injury under the conditions of use recommended or
suggested in labeling. If no conditions of use are suggested or
recommended in the labeling, then the FDA could act against a
supplement that presented a significant or unreasonable risk of illness
or injury under ordinary conditions or use.
This safety standard was carefully developed in close consultation
with Senator Kennedy and Congressmen John Dingell and Henry Waxman, all
of whom worked with us to assure we had the strongest possible measure.
Mr. HARKIN. If I could just amplify on that. To address any lingering
concerns our colleagues might have that the FDA did not have adequate
authority to act against an unsafe supplement, we provided an
additional sixth tool to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We
gave the Secretary emergency authority to act against any supplement he
believes poses an ``imminent hazard'' to public health.
Mr. HATCH. Indeed. That authority, contained within section
402(f)(1)(C) of the FFD&CA, allows the Secretary to act immediately, no
questions asked, to remove a product from the market if he believes
there is a safety problem. Similar emergency authority is contained
within the drug law.
I must take this opportunity to reject the many press accounts, which
have so irresponsibly and inaccurately alleged that the Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act ``deregulated'' dietary
supplements, or falsely stated that ``FDA's hands were tied'' by our
Act. Nothing is further from the truth, as we have just explained in
outlining all the authorities provided to FDA to make certain dietary
supplements are safe and accurately labeled.
Mr. HARKIN. I am in complete agreement. It astounds me that we could
add so many new authorities to the law and have it called
``deregulation.'' I am affronted by any suggestion that the majority of
both bodies of Congress could have endangered the public health in a
way these news reports have falsely claimed. That simply was not the
case, and I hope whomever is planting all these inaccuracies will stop.

[[Page S11094]]

Mr. HATCH. So, with all of these tools in FDA's arsenal, legitimate
questions have been raised about why unsafe or mislabeled products are
being sold. Indeed, many of us are asking, ``What is the problem? Why
are these products still on the market?''
Mr. HARKIN. Implementation of this Act has not been a top priority of
the Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. HATCH. I did a little research on this, and I found some
information which may be of interest to my colleague, since he is the
very capable chair of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee.
It might interest my colleagues to learn that the FDA, the
government's most important consumer protection agency since it
regulates over one-quarter of each dollar in goods sold, is severely at
a disadvantage when its funding is compared to its sister public health
agencies.
For the past three fiscal years, the FDA's appropriation has grown an
average of 6.9 percent.
By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control's appropriation has
grown an average of 12.5 percent; in fact, it grew 15.5 percent between
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
The National Institutes of Health's budget has grown an average of
14.5 percent.
Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of this, and this is a situation we must work
to rectify. Despite the best efforts of those of us who serve on the
Appropriations Committee, the FDA is not getting the budget it
deserves.
In fact, Senator Hatch and I had hoped to use our amendment as a
vehicle for adding funds to the FDA's budget, but we were reluctant to
divert funds from the many agriculture programs funded within this
bill.
For that reason, we are offering this amendment today, in the hopes
that it will focus FDA's efforts on better enforcement of the law.
Mr. HATCH. It is our hope that the House-Senate conferees may be able
to work to add funds for dietary supplement enforcement, so that other
programs of the FDA are not penalized through addition of our language.
Mr. HARKIN. That is correct.
Mr. President, so what our amendment does today is help the FDA make
enforcement of DSHEA a top priority.
I want to emphasize as Senator Hatch did that the vast majority of
dietary supplements are marketed safely and legally, by manufacturers
who care deeply about the public and its health. However, for the few
bad actors who are giving industry a bad name, who are taking advantage
of a trusting public, I say ``it is time to get tough.''
In so doing, we admonish the agency not to wield the heavy hand it
did for over three decades, the over-bearing attitude which led
Congress to pass DSHEA so overwhelmingly in the first place.
Mr. HATCH. There is a reason that over two-thirds of both the House
and Senate cosponsored our legislation, and that reason is quite
simple:
Many of us recall FDA's efforts to classify vitamins as over-the-
counter drugs if they exceeded 150 percent of the Recommended Daily
Allowance, an effort which would have rendered 200 milligrams of
vitamin C a drug. Congress rejected that with the Proxmire amendment in
1976.
More recently, many of us recall FDA's efforts to ban the supplement
black currant oil by saying it was an unsafe food additive. The FDA's
logic was that the black current oil was added to a food--the gelatin
capsule in which it was contained. The Seventh Circuit rejected this
logic, terming the FDA's scheme ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The First
Circuit also described FDA's approach as ``nonsensical.''
It was nonsensical, and we are all grateful that wiser heads have
prevailed since.
So, let me make clear that the intent of our amendment is not to
forearm the FDA so it can embark on another of these fairy-tale
journeys, but rather to help it take enforcement actions against those
who are clearly violative of three aspects of the law: whether products
are accurately labeled; whether claims are truthful and non-misleading;
and whether claims are substantiated.
Mr. HARKIN. It is our hope that the funding provided in our amendment
will allow the FDA to devote additional staff to this effort. In so
doing, we will be making great strides toward assuring Americans--be
they farmers in Iowa, athletes in Utah, stay-at-home moms throughout
the U.S., or even members of Congress--that the dietary supplement
products they take are safe and accurately labeled.
Mr. HATCH. The FDA simply has to get serious about enforcing this
law. We cannot allow the very few products of poor quality to cast a
negative shadow over the rest of the industry, which is so law-abiding.
Before I yield the floor, I want to recognize the great efforts of my
partner in this endeavor--Senator Harkin. I am appreciative of his hard
work here, and the fact that we can count on him for non-partisan
leadership on behalf of both his constituents and the American
consumers.
Mr. HARKIN. I am appreciative of the Senator from Utah's efforts as
well. It is no secret here that he is the world's number one proponent
of dietary supplements. He has done an effective job of helping promote
the public health through safe dietary supplements and I am pleased we
have joined together today in this amendment.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, did the unanimous consent agreement adopt
the managers' amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, does anybody here know
what is in the managers' amendment? Could we have at least a brief
summary from the managers as to what is in the managers' amendment? How
many amendments are there? How many?
Mr. KOHL. Do you want me to read off several?
Mr. McCAIN. How many are there?
Mr. KOHL. There are about 35.
Mr. REID. Has the managers' amendment been agreed to yet?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but
we should not be proud of this way of doing business, my friends.
Thirty-five amendments that nobody has seen, except the two managers,
that I know of; maybe someone else has, but I seriously doubt it.
Thirty-five amendments. No Member has seen them. They may be technical
in nature; they may be very substantive in nature.
I tell my colleagues, I will not agree to this again. We have several
more appropriations bills. I will not agree to this again without at
least knowing what the amendments are.
I remove my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 1988 through 2016) were agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
is necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning),
the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 5, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 315 Leg.]

YEAS--91

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell

[[Page S11095]]

Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--5

Ensign
Gregg
Kyl
McCain
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--4

Boxer
Bunning
Hutchison
Stevens
The bill (H.R. 2330) was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank all staff who worked so hard to
make this bill possible and to assist Senators during the deliberation
of the bill, particularly those who have worked as members of my staff
on this side of the aisle for the Appropriations Committee,
Subcommittee on Agriculture: Rebecca Davies, who is the chief clerk;
Martha Scott Poindexter; and Rachelle Schroeder.
I also want to commend a member of my personal staff who was on the
floor and contributed in a very important way to the work on this bill,
Hunter Moorhead.
Without their good assistance it would not have been possible to have
such a good work product as this bill represents.
It was a pleasure working for the first time with the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin as chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kohl.
He did an excellent job, he and his fine staff, particularly Mr.
Fountain, with whom we have worked for several years, and the others.
We appreciate very much their cooperation and their excellent
professional assistance.
I hope Senators appreciate the fact that without the staff we have,
their talent, their hard work, and their experience, it would have been
impossible to get to the point we did tonight for final passage of this
bill. For that, I am very grateful to all of them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, is the Senate in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Senate insists on its amendments,
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses, and the Chair appoints Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig,
and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the Senate.
The Senator from Louisiana.

____________________