[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11872-S11878]
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--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying
H.R. 2330, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2330), making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agency
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002,
having met have agreed that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the
same with an amendment, signed by a majority of the conferees
on the part of both Houses.
(The report is printed in the House Proceedings of the Record of
November 9, 2001, page H7962.)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 60
minutes of debate on the conference report with the time to be equally
divided and controlled.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate, the
conference report on H.R. 2330, the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002. The House
approved this measure day before yesterday, and we need to take swift
action in the Senate on final passage in order for the President to
sign this conference report into law as soon as possible.
This conference report includes $75.8 billion in total spending for
fiscal year 2002. These funds will be used to support programs and
services of the
[[Page S11873]]
United States Department of Agriculture--except for the Forest
Service--the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission. Of this total, $16 billion is discretionary
spending, and this amount is within the subcommittee's 302(b)
allocation.
As I have stated before, this is not simply an ``agricultural'' bill.
This bill not only supports the rural sector, it supports all sectors.
It supports families in the cities; it supports inspectors along our
borders; it supports the availability of drugs and vaccines to respond
to the challenges of today and whatever tomorrow may bring. I support
this conference report, and I hope all Senators will do the same.
Again, I thank Senator Cochran, ranking member of this subcommittee,
and his staff for their tireless and indispensable help this year. I
also thank my staff and all people who have helped bring us to this
final stage of the appropriations process.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized
for such time as he may consume.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend from
Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, to present for the Senate's approval the
conference report on H.R. 2330. This conference agreement provides
total new budget authority of $75.8 billion for the programs and
activities administered by the United States Department of Agriculture,
the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. These include programs that provide housing opportunities
for low and moderate-income residents of rural America, that protect
our Nation's food supplies against pests and diseases, assure the
safety and efficacy of drugs and medical products, and provide
nutrition assistance for America's children and working families.
This is the seventh conference report of the 13 regular fiscal year
2002 appropriations bills to be presented to the Senate this year for
approval. This conference agreement has been approved by the House of
Representatives by a substantial vote in that body, and Senate passage
of the conference report today would be the final step necessary to
send this bill to the President for his signature. I am hopeful the
Senate will approve the conference report and give our committee a vote
of confidence in our efforts to resolve successfully the differences
that existed between the Senate and House-passed bills.
We think we defended the Senate's interests aggressively, and we
worked out a compromise that will serve the interests not only of the
two bodies but of the American people as well.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition? Time is running.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under whose time does the Senator seek recognition?
Mr. CRAIG. Under that of the ranking minority member, Senator
Cochran.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. From Senator Cochran. Very well, the
Senator is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee,
Senator Kohl, and Senator Cochran, for the tremendous cooperation they
have extended to me and Idaho agriculture as we have considered this
very important appropriations bill. I am pleased the conference report
is now before us.
We all know that agriculture over the last 4 or 5 years has had a
very difficult time, especially at the production level, in finding a
commodity with which the producer could break even or make a profit.
That has certainly been true in my State of Idaho. While that has gone
on, there have been opportunities to improve the research capability
and certainly the conference report we have before us represents that.
All of our Nation's agricultural production has historically benefited
from Federal dollars that have flowed into research at our colleges and
universities that ultimately produce hybrid crops, better techniques,
better conservation, better use of water and soil. All of those things
in combination make agriculture as great as it is in our country today.
I am always amazed at the abundance we have produced as a result of a
private-State-Federal partnership. It can at times be a problem, too,
and that explains part of where we are today. With phenomenal abundance
and availability of commodities, commodity prices in the last several
years have been at about their all-time lows in relation to the cost of
production. As a result of that, certainly this appropriating
subcommittee and the authorizing Committee of Agriculture here in the
Senate, along with the House of Representatives, has made every effort
to assure that production agriculture at least had a safety net so we
would not lose this valuable part of the American economy.
I know our consumers oftentimes take for granted when they go to the
supermarket, and go to the food shelf in that supermarket, finding such
an abundance at such a low price. They oftentimes assume it is always
going to be there. Very seldom do we have the ability to look behind at
the thousands and thousands of American producers and processors that
provide that high-quality food to the American consumer. This
legislation assists in that important part of the American lifestyle
and the American economy.
Also, as agriculture has dwindled, and especially in my State of
Idaho where we have seen Federal policy and national attitudes over the
last two or three decades that would suggest we ought not log or we
ought not mine or we ought not graze because somehow it damages the
environment, we have seen rural economies dwindle, unemployment rise,
and many of our rural areas, which are farm and resource communities,
in dire straits.
In this package is also a rural economic development component that
is increasingly important to rural America. As agriculture struggles,
many of the other associated service industries, and many of the
industries that were very typical in my State, have suffered even more.
Many of them have shut down. Over the last decade, and in part because
of the philosophy of the former administration, we have seen an 80-
percent decline in logging on public lands. That has cost Idaho, and
other States like Idaho, tens of thousands of jobs. As a result,
unemployment in those areas has grown to 12 percent and 14 percent.
Unemployment means people out of work. It means no food on the table.
Oftentimes it means fewer clothes for the children. It means strife
within the family because of the economic circumstances they are
experiencing. To be able to turn that around is part of my job. But it
is also part of the job of the Congress, to have sensitivity toward
economic development of the kind that is, in fact, represented here as
we strive to fund U.S. Forest Service programs, USDA programs that will
benefit rural communities of the kind that make up a very large part of
my State.
I thought it important and appropriate this morning that I come to
the floor to thank the chairman, Senator Kohl, and the ranking member,
Senator Cochran, for the cooperation and the sensitivity they have
shown. Certainly, the chairman of the full committee, who is now the
Presiding Officer here in the Senate, has always had an eye to rural
America. I appreciate that because his State of West Virginia is much
like mine. It is built on resources. It is built on mining. It is built
on the rural lifestyle.
That has been and remains a major part of the American economy. This
bill represents that sensitivity, and I thank them for that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S11874]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
How much time do I have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Byrd has up to 20 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, Senator Kohl, who is also
chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee. I thank him
for his good work on behalf of the people of his State, for his good
work on behalf of the people of my State, and for his good work on
behalf of the people of the Nation. He is an apt student of public
service and of the legislative process. He is one of my favorites. When
I speak in that term, I think of the legislative process and I think of
this institution, the Senate.
I also thank Senator Cochran, who is the ranking member of the
subcommittee. I thank him for his service to the Nation and to his
people and to my people--to our people. Senator Cochran likewise does
good work for the Nation and for the committee. He is a very able
member of the Appropriations Committee.
This conference report includes $75.8 billion in total spending for
fiscal year 2002. This amount is $3 million below the level passed by
the Senate. Of the total amount provided, $16.0 billion is
discretionary spending, and this amount is within the subcommittee's
302(b) allocation. This conference does not include one cent--not one
copper penny--of emergency spending.
This conference report supports programs related to agricultural
research, conservation, rural development, promotion of international
trade, and many other traditional programs for which the agriculture
bill has become so well known. This conference report also supports
domestic food programs such as Food Stamps and the Women, Infants, and
Children, WIC, program, as well as the other food safety and public
health programs of the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies.
The programs supported by this conference report serve the most basic
of needs of the American people in nearly every facet of their lives.
On September 11--another day that will always live in history, a date
that will not be a footnote in the annals of mankind--the American
people were reminded of the importance of programs related to public
health, food supply, and food safety. These programs have long been a
part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, and they are continued,
and strengthened, by this bill.
I am particularly pleased that the conference report contains a
number of provisions related to the treatment of animals--those
creatures that cannot speak for themselves, those creatures without
which mankind would perish. We should think of them, and we do think of
them. There are two principle underlying statutes that provide
authority to agencies under the jurisdiction of this conference report
on the subject of animal treatment. They are the Animal Welfare Act and
the Humane Slaughter Act.
The Animal Welfare Act was first authorized by Public Law 89-544, the
Act of August 24, 1966, and is today carried out by USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The primary purpose of this
Act was to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the
transportation, sale, and handling of dogs, cats, and certain other
animals intended to be used for purposes of research or
experimentation, and for other purposes. Think of the service that
those animals render to mankind. And they don't do it without a
sacrifice to themselves. Today, in addition, this act is used to
regulate individual dog breeders and handlers and larger operations
such as circuses and zoos around the nation.
The Humane Slaughter Act was originally passed in 1958, and requires
that animals be rendered insensitive to pain before they are killed in
a slaughterhouse. This Act is today carried out by USDA's Food Safety
Inspection Service, FSIS.
For a number of years, the level of funding at APHIS for inspections
and enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act had been held stagnant. More
recently, this Congress has been able to provide significant increases
for these activities, including $2.5 million provided through an
amendment I offered in the supplemental appropriations bill that was
signed into law on July 20, 2001.
In this conference report, additional increases are provided for
these purposes. In this conference report that we are debating today, I
say, additional increases are provided for these purposes.
This conference report includes an increase of $2.4 million above the
President's request for animal welfare inspections and the conferees
have directed the agency to hire additional inspectors and support
staff to increase the overall number of inspections, and to conduct
more repeat inspections of facilities found to be in noncompliance with
the act. Let's go back and look at them again, if they are not
complying with the act. This year's appropriation of $15,167,000--in
addition to funds made available in the supplemental--represents an
increase of 60 percent since fiscal year 1999. So, at last, we are
paying more attention--and we ought to pay more attention--to these
animals and to the enforcement of the law in regard to their slaughter.
Increased inspections are logically followed by increased demand for
investigations and enforcement. This conference report includes an
increase of $1,852,000--that is in addition to funds made available in
the supplemental--for APHIS investigation and enforcement activities.
In addition, Statement of Managers language directs the agency to hire
additional inspectors to service the backlog of animal care
investigations. I would like to mention that the conference committee
became aware of reported violations of the Animal Welfare Act regarding
treatment of polar bears by a traveling circus, and Statement of
Managers language is included directing the agency to investigate this
matter, take appropriate action, and report to the Appropriations
Committee.
Earlier this year, news accounts described incidents in meat
slaughterhouses which were atrocious--atrocious--violations of the
Humane Slaughter Act. As part of the $2.5 million amendment that I
sponsored in this year's supplemental, an enhanced program of oversight
within the agency has been initiated to ensure better enforcement of
this act. Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that
it had begun this new initiative--using both funds provided by the
supplemental and other Departmental funds--and had placed additional
FSIS personnel in field district offices to work closely with plant
inspectors and veterinarians.
These individuals, who will be officially known as ``Humane Handling
Verification Experts and Liaisons''-- let me repeat, these individuals,
who will be officially known as ``Humane Handling Verification Experts
and Liaisons''--will work to tighten up enforcement and oversight of
the Humane Slaughter Act.
We are talking about animals. I am not one of those who claim that
man is an animal. Man was created a little lower than the angels but
above the beasts of the field. Read the Scriptures. Read Milton's
``Paradise Lost.'' Yes, the animals serve us every day in ways that we
do not tend to remember. They serve us. But for the animals, mankind
would not exist upon the Earth, in all likelihood. Oh, you say, he
might become a vegetarian, but what about the beasts of burden? The
righteous man looks to the welfare of his beast. So, I intend to watch
this initiative. You can bet on it. I intend to watch this initiative
with keen interest and will look forward to making sure that resources
are continually provided to make it an effective tool to stop inhumane
treatment of animals.
I guess my little dog Billy has had a great deal to do with my
attitude toward animals. He has a little sister named Bonnie. Billy
Byrd is 15 years old. But if there is a creature on this Earth that is
absolutely and forever unfailingly loyal and dedicated to me--and there
is--it is my little dog Billy, that Maltese terrier. He is an animal,
but he feels pain. He must understand affection and love because he
gives it to me and he gives it to Erma; and I give it and she gives it
in return.
Yes, never does he let me leave the door for work that he does not
follow me to the last step. That is an animal. We are talking about
animals that are slaughtered for the food that graces
[[Page S11875]]
the table of men and women and children around the world--animals that
we should treat humanely.
Mr. President, again I want to congratulate the chairman and the
ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for a job
well done. Well done, Senator Kohl. Well done, Senator Cochran. I also
thank all members of the subcommittee for their contributions to this
final product. I thank the members of the staff on both sides of the
aisle, without whom, where would we find ourselves. I thank them. I
support this conference report, and I hope that all Senators will do
the same.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget
Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2330, the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
The conference report provides $16.018 billion in discretionary
budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $12.038
billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into
account, discretionary outlays for the report total $16.282 billion in
2002. By comparison, the Senate-passed version of the bill provided
$16.137 billion in discretionary budget authority, which would have
resulted in $16.118 billion in total outlays. The conference report is
at its revised Section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and
outlays. The conferees have met their target without the use of any
emergency designations.
I commend Senators Kohl and Cochran for working together in a
bipartisan manner with their House counterparts to complete in an
expedited manner the conference to this very important piece of
legislation, which provides funding for agriculture, conservation,
rural development, and domestic food programs. I also commend Chairman
Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as House Chairman Young and Ranking
Member Obey on the significant progress made by the two appropriations
committees over the last couple of weeks in completing the 2002
appropriations bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 2330, THE AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002,
SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:
Budget Authority............... 16,018 43,112 59,130
Outlays........................ 16,282 33,847 50,129
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............... 16,018 43,112 59,130
Outlays........................ 16,282 33,847 50,129
President's request:
Budget Authority............... 15,399 43,112 58,511
Outlays........................ 15,789 33,847 49,636
House-passed:
Budget Authority............... 15,668 43,112 58,780
Outlays........................ 16,044 33,847 49,891
Senate-passed:
Budget Authority............... 16,137 43,112 59,249
Outlays........................ 16,118 33,847 49,965
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............... 0 0 0
Outlays........................ 0 0 0
President's request:
Budget Authority............... 619 0 619
Outlays........................ 493 0 493
House-passed:
Budget Authority............... 350 0 350
Outlays........................ 238 0 238
Senate-passed:
Budget Authority............... -119 0 -119
Outlays........................ 164 0 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the
conference report to the revised Senate 302(b) allocation.
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Who yields time to the
Senator from Illinois?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator
from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. First, I
congratulate him on his excellent remarks. All of us who have owned
pets and have developed a friendship and affection for them can
certainly identify with his kind words about his beloved Billy Byrd and
Billy Byrd's sister Bonnie. I say to Senator Byrd, I was not aware your
dog had a sister. I am glad that has been reported formally in the
Congressional Record.
I also congratulate Senator Kohl because he has worked hard on the
Agriculture appropriations bill that is before us. I am happy to serve
on the subcommittee. I know the hours that have been put in by the
Senator and his staff.
Let me highlight two aspects of this bill that we ought to keep in
mind. It is known as the Agriculture appropriations bill, but it is so
much more.
As important as agriculture is to America, this bill contains as much
money or more for nutrition and feeding as it does for agricultural
programs.
This morning a man by the name of Robert Forney came to my office.
Bob is an old friend. He was head of the Chicago Stock Exchange. When
he retired last year, Bob Forney became the CEO of a program known as
Second Harvest. Second Harvest is the largest emergency food provider
in America. They keep the canned goods and other items of food
available for families who are struggling.
Bob came to tell me this morning that the challenge facing food banks
across America and feeding programs is growing geometrically; 415,000
Americans lost their jobs last month. Many of them lost jobs that don't
qualify for unemployment insurance, and they are struggling to feed
their children.
In this land of prosperity, children are going hungry and the numbers
grow by the day. This bill, with its provision for WIC, for mothers,
infants, and small children, as well as the provision for food stamps,
addresses that. We ought to be mindful of the need to watch this
closely. More money probably will be needed before the end of the next
fiscal year.
There is an important element in this bill about food safety. I
salute Senator Byrd, who stood here yesterday and said: Let us put
money into food security at a time when American families are worried
about bioterrorism. We lost because colleagues from the other side of
the aisle said this is not an emergency. We know better. America knows
better.
This bill, which funds the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to make certain that our food is safe,
provides funds, but the bill offered by Senator Byrd would have given
the additional resources needed for more inspectors, better inspection,
better peace of mind for people all across America. That bill was
defeated. I hope we have a chance to debate that again.
What happened yesterday really turned this Chamber on its head. We
are supposed to listen to the people we represent. We are supposed to
speak for them and advocate for them. What Senator Byrd came forward
with yesterday was spending so that we could produce vaccines to
prepare America for a possible bioterrorist attack. Some have said:
There the Democrats go again, spending money right and left on
porkbarrel. Vaccines to immunize our children and families in case of a
bioterrorist attack is not porkbarrel or wasteful. It is prudent and
thoughtful. I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on that.
Putting money into law enforcement: We tried yesterday so that across
Illinois and West Virginia and Wisconsin and across the Nation, our
first responders, whether police or firefighters, will have the
resources to respond to an act of terrorism.
Modernization for computers: The Senator from West Virginia may be
stunned to learn, as I did recently, that a new FBI agent told me their
computer system at the FBI does not have e-mail, nor does it have
access to the Internet. That is the computer system of the premier law
enforcement agency in America.
Senator Byrd put resources in that bill to modernize computers at the
FBI and other important law enforcement
[[Page S11876]]
agencies. The Republicans voted against it, saying it was not an
emergency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield 30 seconds?
Mr. McCAIN. I am always happy to yield to the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
I thank Senator Durbin, the very distinguished and able Senator from
Illinois, for his kind remarks and for his references to the amendment
of yesterday. We will be back.
I again thank the distinguished Senator who yielded me the time.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the Agriculture appropriations bill is fundamental to
the Nation's agricultural economy and supports foreign and domestic
food programs. Unfortunately, porkbarrel interests also received
remarkable support in this final conference report. While this final
conference report includes less porkbarrel spending than the Senate
bill passed just a couple weeks ago, it still includes $335 million in
wasteful, unnecessary, and unreviewed spending which is $30 million
more than the amount included in the final report passed last year.
Every single appropriations bill we have passed so far has an
increase in porkbarrel spending over last year. We are now up to $9.6
billion of wasted, unnecessary programs.
While the Senator from Wisconsin is on the floor, I saw one of the
more egregious things happen the other night when there was a managers'
package which had 35 provisions in it. When we were about to vote on
it, I asked: Does anybody here know what is in this package? No one
did.
We found out what was in it. What was in it was a violation of a
trade agreement we just concluded with Vietnam. We found 15 porkbarrel
projects identified by State for members of the appropriations
subcommittee. I tell the Senator from Wisconsin, I will not allow a
vote again until the managers' package is examined. That was an
egregious act that was done by the Senate. My constituents deserve a
lot better than what happened the other night with a managers' package
which was brought up late in the evening. No one had seen it. When we
found out, it was certainly something that I never would have allowed
to pass.
When the Senate considered and passed the Agriculture spending bill a
couple weeks ago, the typical porkbarrel trickery reached unprecedented
levels. Midnight legislative riders were covertly slipped in unseen by
a majority of the Senate. Erroneous earmarks for special interest
projects were tacked on--again, unseen and circumventing the normal
committee process--and funding priorities in stark discord with that of
the administration.
Many of my colleagues have spoken before the Senate about the
economic struggle of America's farmers. Common sense would dictate that
this bill be directed towards supporting those Federal programs that
most benefit farmers in need. Instead, special interests reign and
millions of taxpayers' dollars are diverted to funding research
facilities, universities, and farming conglomerates.
Even emergency dollars provided by Congress for farmers do not reach
intended beneficiaries. This porkbarrel bonanza includes millions for
projects that administrations have proposed for elimination year after
year. Yet generous benefactors on the Appropriations Committee keep the
spigot open and continue to drain dollars from hard-working taxpayers.
This method of budget monopolization is ricocheting out of control.
Let's take a look at the top 10 porkbarrel earmarks in this final
Agriculture appropriations bill.
No. 10, $2.2 million for the Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture in Leetown, WV. I come from a pretty hot State. It is
starting to cool off now. Maybe we could get some of that money out in
Arizona for cool and cold water aquaculture rather than have it all be
devoted to Leetown, WV.
No. 9, $600,000 for a tristate joint peanut research project in
Alabama. Naturally it is in Alabama, but it is tristate.
No. 8, $600,000 for agricultural waste utilization in West Virginia.
Nowhere else in America--$600,000 for agricultural waste utilization in
West Virginia. I guess agricultural waste needs to be utilized more
importantly in West Virginia than any other part of America.
No. 7, Increase of $750,000 for the Wisconsin Livestock
Identification Consortium. We now have a consortium in Wisconsin to
identify livestock.
No. 6, $2 million to pay for efficient irrigation in New Mexico and
Texas--efficient irrigation in New Mexico and Texas.
No. 5, $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois. Trees
Forever. I have mentioned on the floor, I would like to see a cactus
forever program. Perhaps the appropriators might devote that to my
State of Arizona.
No. 4, $200,000 for the Iowa Soybean Association. Last I checked, the
Iowa Soybean Association was a private organization composed of
individuals who decided to join in this association in support of
soybeans. Now we are going to give them $200,000.
No. 3, $4.5 million for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston,
SC.
No. 2, $230,000 for animal waste management in Oklahoma.
No. 1, $100,000 for the Weed It Now initiative in Massachusetts, New
York, and Connecticut. Weed It Now. Mr. President, we need a Weed It
Now program on these appropriations bills. We need to weed out this
outrageous dispensation of American tax dollars.
I want to speak briefly about one of the concealed provisions slipped
into the managers' amendment just before the Senate passed this bill.
This provision effectively bans all imports of Vietnamese catfish into
the United States. The sly wording of this measure doesn't mention
Vietnam at all. But it does patently violate our solemn trade agreement
with Vietnam, before the Vietnamese National Assembly has even ratified
that agreement. The ink isn't even dry yet, and we are violating that.
Why? No doubt it was inserted on behalf of several large, wealthy U.S.
agribusinesses that will handsomely profit by killing competition from
Vietnamese catfish imports.
Whether you are a free trader or an opponent of harmful special
interest riders hidden in big spending bills, you can't help but find
this sort of behavior to be a scandalous abrogation of our duty to the
national interest. After preaching for years to the Vietnamese about
the need to get government out of the business of micromanaging their
economy, we have sadly implicated ourselves in the very sin our trade
policy claims to reject. I will work with Senators Kerry, Phil Gramm,
and others to see that this offensive trade barrier doesn't stand.
We have a great responsibility to American citizens. I urge my
colleagues to exercise greater prudence and principle in this
responsibility.
Mr. President, I have an article from the Wall Street Journal of
yesterday, and I also have an article from the Washington Post of
today. I ask unanimous consent that both of those articles be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 14, 2001]
Add-On Spending Projects Are on Course To Exceed Those of Last
Administration
(By David Rogers)
Washington.--After tough talk last spring, the White House
appears to be retreating from its vow to stem the tide of
year-end spending projects added by Congress to annual
appropriations bills.
Soon after taking office, the administration proposed to
write off billions of dollars in existing pork-barrel
projects as ``one-time'' expenditures. But as the legislative
session draws to a close just the opposite is the case, and
the number of so-called spending earmarks by lawmakers may
actually be growing.
Congress yesterday sent President Bush a $112.7 billion
appropriations bill estimated to have close to 1,400 earmarks
attached to science, veterans, housing and environmental
programs. The list of projects in a single account in the
Department of Housing and Urban Development consumed 10 pages
of the Congressional Record, and space-science programs
increasingly have become a conduit for grants to home state
universities.
The action came as House and Senate negotiators approved a
$75.9 billion agriculture budget adding scores of research
projects along with an amendment to help U.S. catfish growers
fight off imports from Vietnam.
[[Page S11877]]
Hours later, still more earmarks were approved as part of a
final $39.3 billion Commerce, Justice, and State Department
budget that adds money for maritime loan subsidies that the
White House wants to terminate.
The administration has raised objections, but nothing like
this week's veto threat over how much Congress can spend in
response to the terrorist attacks. For example, in a recent
five-page letter to negotiators on the HUD and science bill,
the issue of earmarks was almost the last issue raised by
Budget Director Mitchell Daniels Jr. His Deputy, Sean
O'Keefe, insisted yesterday that progress is being made
incrementally, but on a bipartisan basis, House
Appropriations staff say the administration has been little
help in curbing the more earmark-prone Senate. ``We haven't
heard a peep,'' said James Dyer, chief clerk to the House
Appropriations panel.
Last spring, the tone was very different, as the Office of
Management and Budget tallied up more than 6,000 earmarks
costing $15 billion in the last appropriations bills approved
by the departing Clinton administration. In trying to make
room for its own initiatives--including the president's tax
cut--OMB assumed cuts of $8 billion from such earmarks and
other ``one time'' expenditures. Failure to enforce this
budget discipline, now, could come back to haunt the
administration, which faces the prospect of rising costs
because of terrorist strikes and a troubled economy.
The revised agriculture budget yesterday is a first sign of
these pressures. As unemployment has risen, so has the
projected caseload next year for federal nutrition programs,
and lawmakers had to add $211 million to Mr. Bush's request
to pay these bills.
All of this comes at a time of increasingly bitter
relations between the Appropriations and OMB. Mr. Daniels is
blamed by lawmakers in both parties for precipitating the
veto clash this week with Mr. Bush. In a ``Dear Mitch''
letter, House Appropriations Chairman Bill Young (R., Fla.)
and Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the ranking Democrat, asked
that OMB freeze all spending and transfers from an emergency
fund until there is more consultation with the panel.
____
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2001]
In Congress, Pork Stays on Menu
pet projects sometimes at odds with new spending demands
(By John Lancaster and Dan Morgan)
Last month, lawmakers rejected a proposal to add $131
million to a program that helps Russia keep track of its
nuclear stockpile. It's not that they didn't like the idea:
After Sept. 11, almost everyone in Congress agrees on the
need to do more to stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear
bombs.
But House and Senate negotiators meeting to decide the
final shape of a $24.6 billion spending bill covering the
nation's nuclear and water programs could not find room for
the increase.
They had other priorities, including:
A museum at the Atomic Testing History Institute in Las
Vegas ($1 million);
Aquatic-weed removal in the Lavaca and Navidad rivers in
Texas ($350,000).
A study of erosion on Waikiki Beach in Hawaii ($350,000).
Targeting funds for specific projects at the request of
individual lawmakers is a time-honored ritual on Capital
Hill, and this year is no exception. But as Congress
completes work on 13 annual spending bills, its business-as-
usual approach to managing the federal budget is colliding
with the new demands of fighting terrorism.
The soaring costs of responding to the attacks--Congress
has already approved $40 billion for the purpose--have done
little so far to curb congressional appetites for
courthouses, highways, dams, parks and other purely parochial
items. According to congressional aides, the number of such
``earmarks'' in this year's crop of spending bills is likely
to approach or even exceed last year's record number, which
was estimated by the White House budget office at 6,400 (a
threefold increase from 1995).
Many of the earmarks, as in previous years, reflect
political clout more than national need. Money is flowing
disproportionately to the districts of appropriations
committee members and congressional leaders--including self-
described fiscal conservatives such as Senate Minority Leader
Trent Lott, who secured millions for projects in his home
state of Mississippi.
``These legislative hijinks are bad enough in peacetime,''
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Senate last week, after
noting acidly that on Sept. 13, while the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center ``still smoldered,'' the Senate approved
$2 million for the Oregon Groundfish Outreach Program.
``America is at war. . . . Congress should grow up and stop
treating the domestic budget as a political Toys R Us.''
There is no shortage of examples: $510,000 for a chapel at
Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Base in Hawaii; $100,000 to study
the feasibility of converting a building in Martinsburg, W.
Va., to a museum for Army artifacts; $70,000 to refurbish a
bird observatory in Montgomery County, Pa.; $500,000 for the
Montana Sheep Institute.
``Pork thrives in good times and bad times,'' said Allen
Schick, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution.
He added, ``the problem is not the individual project, but
the cumulative effect. . . . When you add up the total, it
just blows your mind.''
Earmarks do not automatically swell the federal budget,
because in some cases they merely direct government agencies
to spend money for specific purposes within the limits of
available funds. But many of this year's items were added on
top of President Bush's budget request, sometimes in House-
Senate conferences where they received little scrutiny.
Successive administrations have insisted that such choices
are better left to federal agencies, complaining that
earmarks create upward pressure on the budget by crowding out
more important needs.
Members of the appropriations committees--who note that the
Constitution grants Congress authority over spending--say
they can judge local needs better than federal bureaucrats
because they have their ears to the ground back home.
Several congressional aides defended this year's earmarks,
observing that spending legislation was largely drafted--and
in some cases voted on by one or both chambers--before Sept.
11. They also noted that, whatever the particulars of
individual bills, spending is on track to stay within the
overall budget ceiling of $686 billion negotiated by the Bush
administration and congressional leaders last month.
There is little question, however, that the fat surplus
projections of recent years, now fading into memory, have
eased pressure on Congress to show restraint. White House
budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. has all but abandoned
the quest he launched earlier this year to contain the
practice of earmarking. ``To be honest, the appropriators
weren't that receptive,'' an administration official said.
Despite broad bipartisan agreement on the need to spend
more to fight terrorism--lawmakers have tried without success
to persuade the White House to lift the $40 billion ceiling
on emergency spending related to the Sept. 11 attacks--they
have been reluctant to do so at the expense of pet projects
back home.
During a House-Senate conference on the energy and water
bill Oct. 26, for example, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) offered
an amendment that would have added $131 million to an Energy
Department program to help Russia safeguard its nuclear
materials. He was responding, in part, to a January warning
by a department task force--chaired by former Senate
Republican leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (Tenn.) and former
White House counsel Lloyd Cutler--that lax nuclear security
in Russia was ``the most urgent unmet national security
threat to the United States today.''
But conferees rejected Edwards's proposal to shift the
money from a program to refurbish nuclear warheads in the
U.S. arsenal. Nor did they consider taking funds from
hundreds of local water projects or other earmarks, such as
the atomic history museum.
``That's a very fair question to ask,'' Edwards said when
queried about why he did not suggest the option.
Edwards said that while he would have been open to an
across-the-board cut in water projects to fund the
nonproliferation program, ``it is politically very
difficult'' to eliminate individual earmarks--some of which,
he acknowledged, he sought on behalf of his own constituents.
The $1 million earmark to pay for exhibits at the Atomic
Testing History Institute was added by Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-
Nev.), the assistant majority leader, who chairs the energy
and water panel of the Appropriations Committee. Reid's hand
is evident throughout the final bill, which adds 50 Nevada-
specific items worth $146 million to Bush's original budget
request.
According to a spokesman, Reid strongly supports the Energy
Department's nonproliferation efforts but objects to shifting
funds for the purpose ``at the eleventh hour.'' The
spokesman, Nathan Naylor, said it was not surprising that a
bill to fund nuclear programs would steer a lot of money to
Nevada, given the state's central role in nuclear testing.
Naylor said the atomic history museum would ``chronicle the
historic sacrifice that Nevada has made for the country
during the Cold War,'' when some of its residents were
poisoned by radiation from above-ground tests in the 1950s.
``This is part of our history, and if this is what it costs
to protect that legacy, so be it,'' he said.
Reid is hardly alone in using his leadership post to
channel federal resources to the folks back home.
Lott, for example, has joined the Bush administration in
opposing additional spending for homeland defense, the
military and New York City in a pending supplemental
appropriations bill. ``He's concerned about spending just
spiraling completely out of control,'' Lott told reporters
last week. ``And I share that concern.''
But even as Lott was making that comment, the Senate was
giving final approval to a spending bill that included $10
million for the Stennis Space Center in Bay St. Louis, Miss.;
$50,000 for a street extension that will ``link cultural and
entertainment districts'' in Jackson, Miss.; $500,000 for
Lott's alma mater, the University of Mississippi; and more
than $1 million for water systems in Jackson and Picayune,
Miss.
In a similar vein, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif) used his
power as chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee
to steer a $10 million grant to the city of San Bernardino,
in his district, to clean up the underground water supply.
The bill would direct the Army to clean up radioactive waste
at a site in the district of Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the
ranking Democrat on the panel.
[[Page S11878]]
Senate appropriators, meanwhile, used the $10.5 billion
military construction bill, signed by the president on Nov.
5, to speed up stalled environmental projects in their states
and districts. For example, the report attached to the
enacted bill gives the Pentagon 90 days to submit a master
plan for ``environmental remediation'' of Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard in San Francisco, home town of the chairman of the
military construction panel in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein
(D).
According to a Senate study, the nine states that will
receive the most earmarked military construction money are
represented by senior members of the defense or military
construction panels, or the two armed services committees.
To pay for earmarked projects while staying within a $10.5
billion ceiling established by the appropriations committees,
House and Senate conferees adopted a 1.127 percent across-
the-board cut in regular military construction accounts.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am against what is going on here. In a
time of war, some have called it ``war profiteering.'' I think it is
wrong. We are abrogating our responsibilities to the American people. I
also think it is time the administration step in and the President veto
some of these bills with these outrageous spending projects in them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time run
equally on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is running equally.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Arizona has said I can yield back his
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is yielded back.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2500
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following the action on the Agriculture appropriations conference
report, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2500, the Commerce-State-Justice
appropriations bill, and that it be considered under the following
limitations: 45 minutes for debate with time equally divided under and
controlled as follows: 15 minutes each for Senator Hollings, Senator
Gregg, and Senator McCain, or their designees; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, without further intervening action or debate,
the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the order is that the vote
begin at 11:30; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will begin when all time is yielded
back.
Mr. REID. How much time is outstanding?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are approximately 4 minutes on each
side.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on
our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, upon the advice of the Republican staff, I
yield back their time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 7, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
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
Hutchison
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 (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--7
Bayh
Ensign
Gregg
Kyl
McCain
Smith (NH)
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--1
Torricelli
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________