[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14104-S14155]
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, 2004

  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that we resume consideration of 
H.R. 2673.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Pending:

       Bennett/Kohl amendment No. 2073, of a technical nature.
       Specter amendment No. 2080, to limit the use of funds to 
     allocate the rate of price support between the purchase 
     prices for nonfat dry milk and butter in a manner that does 
     not support the price of milk at the rate prescribed by law.

  Mr. BENNETT. I understand there are a number of amendments to be 
offered. Senator Dorgan has approached me about one he would like to 
offer. I have no particular preference as to the order in which the 
amendments come. I understand some Senators wish to make comments 
before we get into the amending process. I do not see the Senators in 
the Chamber who told me they planned to make some kind of a statement.
  Senator Kohl and I are open for business.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator has given up the floor, 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2115

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2115.

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

 (Purpose: To provide funds to implement and administer Team Nutrition 
                       programs, with an offset)

       On page 5, line 1, strike ``$188,022,000'' and insert 
     ``$183,022,000''.
       On page 48, line 24, strike ``$11,418,441,000'' and insert 
     ``$11,423,441,000''.
       On page 48, line 26, strike ``$6,718,780,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,723,780,000''.
       On page 49, line 7, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That not less than 
     $15,025,000 shall be available to implement and administer 
     Team Nutrition programs of the Department of Agriculture''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. 
It would provide $5 million in additional funding to the nutrition 
education and training section of the School Lunch Program. The funds 
would serve to develop new programs and to implement existing programs 
in the Department of Agriculture Team Nutrition Program. Nutrition 
education programs are being chronically underfunded and have been for 
a great many years.
  We have authorized in current law--the law about to expire, as I 
understand it--50 cents to be spent for every public school student to 
be served in this country. That is 50 cents per year. This is not 50 
cents per day; this is 50 cents per year.
  I was speaking to Senator Byrd from West Virginia and he said for 
nutrition education we ought to at least give them as much money as it 
costs to buy a candy bar. That is not an unreasonable goal to set for 
this great country. Last year, we did not begin to reach the 50 cents 
per student per year. Last year, we provided $10 million.
  This chart shows the funding level beginning in 1996. In 1996, we 
provided $23.5 million. This is for the combined funding of the 
nutrition education training and the team nutrition. As I understand, 
this nutrition education training is essentially money that goes as 
grants to the States to help them provide some kind of nutrition 
instruction in their schools. We provided $23.5 million in 1996, $14.25 
million in 1997, $11.75 million in 1998, and down to $10 million in 
1999.
  We are again, in the current fiscal year, being presented with an 
appropriations bill that calls for $10 million.

[[Page S14105]]

My amendment would increase that by another $5 million.
  This team nutrition component in this Department of Agriculture 
effort is an integrated behavior-based comprehensive plan for promoting 
nutritional health among our Nation's schoolchildren. We have over 47 
million children in school in this country--that is kindergarten 
through 12th grade--47 million in the public school system.
  There are three behavior-oriented strategies the Department of 
Agriculture has tried to pursue. One is to provide trading and 
technical assistance for child nutrition food service professionals; 
that is, the people who provide lunches and breakfasts and serve meals 
so that the meals being served meet certain nutritional standards.
  The second strategy is to provide multifaceted, integrated 
nutritional education for children and their parents. This tries to 
build some kind of motivation on the part of young people to remain 
healthy, to be healthy, to maintain some type of healthy lifestyle.
  The third strategy is to provide support for healthy eating and 
physical activity by involving school administrators and other school 
and community partners.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill proposes $10 million for this 
year's funding. In my view, that is woefully inadequate. It is 
inadequate because without additional funds, many States are not able 
to provide any nutrition instruction.
  Why is it important at this point in our Nation's history to concern 
ourselves with nutrition instruction? It is important because over the 
last two decades obesity rates have more than doubled among children 
and they have more than tripled among adolescent children in our 
society. Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are 
responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in this country. The major 
risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in 
childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, 
obesity, and tobacco use. Those are the main causes that lead to the 
problem of obesity that leads to the other problems I have recounted.
  Today, one in seven young people are considered obese; one in three 
are overweight. This is a crisis. It is a crisis for the future and a 
crisis for our health system.
  The Surgeon General estimates that at the minimum we spend each year 
$100 billion dealing in our health care system--this is taxpayer 
dollars--$100 billion in our health care system, through Medicare and 
Medicaid, and other health programs, on diseases that are directly 
attributable to obesity. That is a rough figure, obviously. But they 
think that is a modest or conservative figure.

  You compare that $100 billion to $10 million and you have a very 
interesting comparison: $10 million is not 1 percent of $100 billion, 
it is not one-tenth of 1 percent of $100 billion; it is one one-
hundredth of 1 percent of $100 billion. We have all heard, all our 
lives, the expression an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 
We are not asking for anything like that ratio. If we were doing that, 
we would say we should provide one-sixteenth as much. Instead, we are 
providing one one-hundredth of 1 percent as much on nutrition education 
as we are spending to deal with the problems that could be avoided.
  Obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children to become 
obese adults. The overweight problem results in all sorts of physical 
diseases: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self-
esteem, and discrimination. They face discrimination throughout their 
lives as a result of this problem.
  There are only 2 percent of children who currently consume a diet 
that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture food guide calls for, so the Department of 
Agriculture is in the business of trying to give young people and 
adults throughout our society advice. They do issue a food guide, the 
food guide pyramid, they call it. But, unfortunately, there is no 
followthrough instruction in our schools to try to really assist in 
getting this information to young people at a time when it can 
dramatically affect their habits for the rest of their lives.
  I believe nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of 
healthy adults in this country. This amendment would be a very modest 
step toward getting some additional funds for this purpose. It would 
provide funding at the State level for implementation and 
administration of nutrition education training.
  This is a program that has existed on the statutes for years. 
Unfortunately, it has not been funded. It is time to begin getting 
these figures up to a more reasonable level.
  As I say, Senator Byrd from West Virginia made a suggestion which I 
think would be a good goal for us to set. He said we should at least 
provide as much funding per student per year as it would cost each of 
them to buy a candy bar. That is not unreasonable. I hope we can take 
this modest step and move ahead.
  Let me cite a little bit more information because there was a good 
hearing on this subject that occurred earlier this year. I want to cite 
the testimony of the Department of Agriculture on the very issue I am 
talking about. This was a hearing on the reauthorization of the 
authorizing legislation here, and the Department of Agriculture 
representative at that hearing testified about their position. This is 
testimony from Eric Bost, who is the Under Secretary for Food, 
Nutrition, and Consumer Services, testifying before the Agriculture 
Committee in the Senate. He said in that testimony that the 
administration supports:

     healthy school environments to address the epidemic of 
     overweight and obesity among our children by providing 
     financial incentives to schools that meet the dietary 
     guidelines. . . .

  He said:

       The immediate reasons for overweight among our children are 
     clear and uncomplicated. . . .

  Then he goes through a list, of which one of the items in the list 
is:

     the lack of strong program of nutrition education and 
     physical education in many schools. . . .

  That is exactly what I am talking about. We have no strong program. 
You cannot have a strong program when you are spending $10 million in a 
nation of 280 million people, with 47 million young people in our 
elementary schools and our high schools.
  He goes on, in that same testimony, to state, unequivocally:

       We support expanded funding to support the delivery of 
     education messages and materials in schools.

  When you look at this chart, it is obvious we have not been expanding 
the funding. Funding has been stagnant for most of a decade. In fact, 
it has dropped from where it was in 1996, very substantially.
  The reasons for my amendment are very clear. The justification for it 
is overwhelming. In a wealthy nation like this, we can do better. We 
cannot afford to do as little in this area as we have traditionally 
done. The new crisis we face with obesity among children is a strong 
wake-up call to all of us that we need to begin doing something 
significant in nutrition education.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I was hoping to get a resolution of my 
amendment before we switch to another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator objecting to setting aside his 
amendment?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I do object at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am thinking we should not plan on any 
votes until maybe 2 or 2:30. I understand there are some conflicts 
going on on both sides of the aisle. I would say to the Senator, if he 
is going to insist on a rollcall vote, we should stack it at that time.
  I have a problem with the Senator's amendment in that the offset he 
cites is from buildings and facilities at the Department of 
Agriculture. One can say, well, you can always find an extra

[[Page S14106]]

$5 million, but that is an account that is committed to lease payments 
and other contracts that have been established for a while. It is $5 
million, which in the scheme of things is not all that much money, but 
the offset is a bit problematical. We did fund this program at the 
requested level of $10 million, so it is going above the level.
  These are the only comments I have on the amendment. I say to the 
Senator, if he insists on a rollcall vote, we possibly could set a time 
some time after 2 or 2:30 where the votes might occur, and I would hope 
to stack some votes at that time on amendments.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I just ask the manager a question 
through the Chair.
  I would be interested--obviously, my purpose is to get more resources 
for this activity. If the manager and the ranking member think they 
would be able to find a better offset, or find some other way to 
provide some resources for this or think that is a possibility, then I 
would be glad to defer to them. I picked this offset because I could 
not get any suggestion from anyone at the staff level, at least, of a 
better way to do this. If you think there may be a way to do this, I 
would be anxious to hear about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to make the comment that 
Senator Bingaman has brought a very important and relevant issue to the 
floor. I agree with him that the funding level is inadequate, but I 
agree with Senator Bennett that finding an offset is not yet something 
we have been able to do.
  I personally, if Senator Bennett feels the same way, would be willing 
to work with Senator Bingaman to see if we can't find some way to 
provide a satisfactory offset and, at any rate, to do everything we can 
to improve the funding level for this important service, if not this 
year, in future years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my ranking member for his 
thoughtful analysis of this and concur. We will be happy to look 
through the bill and see if we can find an offset and, as he said, if 
not this year, then in future years, because I do think the issue the 
Senator from New Mexico has raised is a legitimate one.


                      Amendment No. 2115 Withdrawn

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with that assurance, I will not go ahead 
and push this to a vote at this point. Let me thank my colleagues for 
their assurance and urge, if it is possible before we complete action 
on this appropriations bill, before it goes to the President for 
signature, that we find some additional funds this year. That would be 
most appreciated.
  I will be glad to work with them with regard to next year as well. 
This obviously needs to be a multiyear effort, if we are going to get 
funding for nutrition education up to a level that actually has an 
impact. That would be my hope.
  With that understanding, I withdraw the amendment and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn. No objection being 
heard to waiving the amendment before the Senate, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2116

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2116.

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

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the importation of 
             cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. SENSE OF SENATE ON IMPORTATION OF CATTLE WITH 
                   BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the United States beef industry is the single largest 
     segment of United States agriculture;
       (2) the United States has never allowed the importation of 
     live cattle from a country that has been found to have bovine 
     spongiform encephalopathy (referred to in this section as 
     ``BSE'');
       (3) the importation of live cattle known to have BSE could 
     put the entire United States cattle industry at unnecessary 
     risk;
       (4) food safety is a top priority for the people of the 
     United States; and
       (5) the importation of beef and beef products from a 
     country known to have BSE could undermine consumer confidence 
     in the integrity of the food supply and present a possible 
     danger to human health.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Secretary of Agriculture--
       (1) should not allow the importation of live cattle from 
     any country known to have BSE unless the country complies 
     with the animal health guidelines established by the World 
     Organization for Animal Health; and
       (2) should abide by international standards for the 
     continued health and safety of the United States livestock 
     industry.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have to chair a Democratic Policy 
luncheon in a few moments. I say to the manager and ranking member, I 
have two amendments to this bill. This is one. I will come back 
posthaste following the luncheon and offer the other. I don't want to 
hold up this bill. I want to have both amendments considered. I know 
you want to complete work on this important appropriations bill.
  Let me describe the amendment that I have now offered dealing with 
something I think is very important.
  We have in this country a livestock industry that is $175 billion. It 
is a very large industry, an important industry. In North Dakota, it is 
roughly $500 million, and it is important to our State. Ranching and 
farming, of course, represent the bread and butter of our economy in 
North Dakota.
  Let me talk about some of the difficulties we face in the beef and 
livestock industry. We have had in some recent years outbreaks of 
something called BSE or more commonly referred to as mad cow disease. 
It is devastating. It is heartbreaking to see the consequences of an 
outbreak of mad cow disease on producers in a country where it occurs.
  I hold up a chart that shows a pretty graphic picture of piles and 
piles of dead cattle with a fellow up here who is looking at all these 
cattle that have been slaughtered as a result of mad cow disease. This 
was in March 1997. The costs to that industry in England were 
devastating.
  Our neighbor to the north, Canada, had one animal diagnosed with mad 
cow disease, an animal that appeared sick when it was slaughtered in 
January. They apparently severed the head and put it in a cooler, and 
some 4 months later they tested it and discovered that the animal, 
slaughtered in January, had mad cow disease or BSE.
  As a result, we closed our border to the live import of cattle from 
Canada. It has been a devastating time for Canadian producers. Our 
hearts go out to them. It is a difficult situation for them. But what 
is important for us is to protect our industry, our beef industry, our 
livestock industry.
  Last week the Secretary of Agriculture indicated that she is moving 
now toward putting Canada to a ``minimal risk'' status with respect to 
the import of cattle which would set up the capability of importing 
live cattle from Canada. We are not now importing them. We import some 
slaughtered beef products but not live cattle.
  The amendment I offer is rather simple. The United States, with most 
other countries, belongs to the World Organization for Animal Health. 
That organization has protocols, describing the timeline for when you 
might allow imports into your country from a country that has mad cow 
disease or BSE.
  Let me read the sense of the Senate: It is the sense of the Senate 
that the Secretary of Agriculture should not allow the importation of 
live cattle from any country known to have BSE, better known as mad cow 
disease, unless the country complies with the animal health guidelines 
established by the World Organization for Animal Health, and, No. 2, 
should abide by the international standards for continued health and 
safety of the U.S. livestock industry.
  What are those guidelines? The guidelines may be changed. I am told 
there are discussions to do so. I am not necessarily opposed to 
changing them. But whatever the guidelines are, they are. At the moment 
those guidelines talk about a country or zone with minimal BSE risk:

       The cattle population of a country or zone may be 
     considered as presenting a minimal BSE risk should the 
     country or zone comply with the following requirements:

[[Page S14107]]

       The last indigenous case of BSE was reported more than 
     seven years ago.

  There is another category more than 4 years ago.
  In this case, the case of mad cow disease occurring in Canada, it was 
some 10 months ago, and it was disclosed only 6 months ago. We are 
talking now about opening the border to imports of cattle from Canada.
  That could be a devastating risk to our livestock industry. We have a 
lot of ranchers trying to make a living. We ought to care about the 
risk posed to them if we import cattle from a country that had a case 
of BSE within recent months.
  We have a lot to lose. Let me describe a circumstance, for example, 
with Japan. In the year 2000, beef consumption in Japan was at 1.577 
million tons carcass weight equivalent. BSE was discovered in Japan in 
September 2001. That beef consumption dropped by 16 percent in 1 year. 
Compounding those problems, Japan just announced its second case of BSE 
in an animal less than 30 months of age. The most recent case is a cow 
21 months of age. USDA is proposing a rule that would allow cattle 30 
months or younger to be imported to the U.S.
  We have organizations that say, well, it is not going to be a big 
problem. In fact, a Harvard risk assessment on BSE and its effects came 
to the conclusion: Even if infected animals entered into the U.S. 
animal agricultural system from Canada, the risk of it spreading 
extensively within the U.S. herd was low.
  I am sorry. If we have a case of BSE, mad cow disease, in this 
country, the risk is dramatic for our beef industry, just as it was for 
Japan--a 16-percent reduction in beef consumption. It is a devastating 
blow to our industry if it occurs.
  I believe at this point we ought to proceed with caution. We are not 
talking about 4 years or 7 years, which represents the guideline of the 
International Organization for Animal Health. We are talking just a 
matter of months past the time when a case of BSE was disclosed by our 
neighbors to the north. I regret that has happened to them. I know it 
is heartbreaking for them. I know they would like to move cattle into 
our marketplace as early as possible, but the fact is, our obligation 
is to try to find every way possible to prevent an outbreak of mad cow 
disease in this country because it would be devastating to a 
significant, vibrant industry, devastating to a lot of ranchers out 
there trying to make a living today.
  We ought not have USDA move as quickly as they want to move. First, 
it is an abrogation of the guidelines we signed up for. The guidelines 
of the International Code of Animal Health don't describe a 
circumstance in which you change the rules and allow the importation of 
live cattle from a country which has had an experience with mad cow 
disease in just a matter of recent months.
  The World Organization for Animal Health is made up of 164 nations, 
our Nation included, and Canada. One of the missions is to develop 
guidelines that relate to the rules that member nations use to protect 
themselves against diseases without setting up unjustifiable sanitary 
barriers. I agree with all that. But I am saying that the guidelines in 
this organization of which we are a member and to which we are a party 
are explicit. They do not include a circumstance in which we decide, 
some 6 months after the disclosure of mad cow disease, that we will 
take live cattle imported from that country into our marketplace. That 
poses significant risks to our producers.
  The National Cattleman's Beef Association, NCBA, supports the 
amendment. The R-CALF organization supports this amendment. These are 
the two largest beef organizations in the United States. I offer it 
today hopeful for its consideration. It is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution.
  As I indicated when I started, I have to chair a Democratic Policy 
Committee lunch in about 1 minute.
  So what I would like to do is have this amendment be pending, and it 
would be preferable, if you want, to set it aside and take other 
amendments while I am at lunch. I will come back to the floor at 2 
o'clock and say a few more words and perhaps I can get the ranking 
member and manager to agree to accept this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. If the Senator will stay on the floor for a moment 
longer. If he doesn't talk when he comes back at 2 o'clock, we will 
accept the amendment now, at 1 o'clock; is that acceptable?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is an offer I cannot refuse, although the not-
talking proviso will not relate to my second amendment. I will come 
back--actually for the courtesy of the manager and ranking member, as I 
know they want to move the bill--and offer my second amendment. I am 
happy to do that if he is willing to take the amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am always happy to engage in a little humor with my 
friend. We served together as chairman and ranking member on another 
subcommittee. I assure him I am always happy to hear him at any time on 
any subject.
  To move the bill forward, I have checked with Senator Kohl and he is 
fully in support of the Dorgan amendment. I have no objection to it. I 
ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). If there is no further debate, 
without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2116) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Delaware 
here. I don't think he will talk about mad cow disease. I am happy to 
yield what time he might require for his statement. I ask him in 
advance if he will tell us how much time he will use.
  I send the message out to those enjoying lunch, or those who are at 
the White House, or wherever, that we intend to finish this bill today. 
The assistant Democratic leader has told me that it is his desire from 
the other side that we finish this bill today. So I hope Senators who 
have amendments will come to the floor in a timely fashion. We will do 
the best we can to deal with the amendments in a timely fashion so we 
can finish the bill and get it on its way.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                          u.s. policy in iraq

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the chairman is correct. I don't plan on 
speaking on mad cow disease. I will speak for approximately 20 minutes. 
If anybody comes in with a relevant amendment, I will yield the floor. 
I am going to talk on the subject of Iraq.
  Two days ago, the Congress completed action on the President's 
request for $87 billion. In fact, I think later today there is going to 
be a signing down at the White House for military operations 
reconstruction money for Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, that relates to 
that $87 billion request.
  The debate we had in the Congress over that issue reflected more than 
our concern about the amount of money. I think it reflected more than 
the sticker shock that the American people felt when they heard the $87 
billion number. I think it reflected the fact that there is a crisis in 
confidence in the President's leadership in Iraq. To put it more 
straightforward, there is a grave doubt about the policy we are 
engaging in now and its prospects for success.
  The American people not only have those doubts, but I know, and we 
all know on the floor, that a number of Members on both sides of this 
aisle have doubts about the policy. I voted for the $87 billion, and I 
believe we needed to do that. But we cannot afford to fail in Iraq, and 
there was no option but the one before us.
  It seems to me that we are going to have great difficulty succeeding 
in Iraq unless we act more wisely, and I want to discuss that very 
briefly today. I will be coming to the floor next week with a much more 
expanded speech on this subject. In order for us to succeed, I think we 
have to simply change our policy. We have to change the policy we are 
pursuing now in several very important ways.
  First, in order to determine whether or not we think this policy is 
working, it seems we have to understand the situation on the ground in 
Iraq. There are two realities in Iraq right now. One is that there is 
some real progress being made: Schools are being opened; hospitals are 
open; there is a number of reconstruction projects underway; the 
setting up of local councils is occurring

[[Page S14108]]

and other things that are good. But all of that progress is being 
undermined by the other reality on the ground: our failure so far to 
get security, especially in the Sunni Triangle in Baghdad.
  The failure to secure that area has undermined not only the progress 
we are making but, in my view, has created a circumstance where it 
becomes incredibly more difficult each day to get the kind of help we 
need to ultimately succeed. That is to the degree to which other 
nations, and to the degree to which Iraq is, and the degree to which 
the American people believe we are not making significant progress is 
the degree to which they withdraw their support or fail to offer 
support.
  We need international support, we need the continued support of the 
Iraqi people, and we need the American people prepared to stay the 
course by spending billions of more dollars in order to get this done 
and, even more importantly, risking and losing American lives.
  I am worried we are going to soon lose the support of the Iraqi 
people and the vast majority of the American people. The Iraqi people, 
to make it clear, are happy Saddam Hussein is no longer around. They 
very much want to build a better future. But the fact is, there has 
never been a government in Iraq that has been a democracy. In fact, as 
we all know, Iraq was a nation built and carved out of a colonial 
circumstance back at the end of the World War I, and it is very 
difficult, at best, to figure out how to put it together in any form of 
representative government. It is going to take some time.

  So the job, No. 1, here for us, it seems to me, is getting the 
security right, controlling the streets, securing the weapons depots, 
getting much better intelligence. But that has always been the No. 1 
job we have had, and all other success depends upon that occurring--
better security. It has always been the administration's 
responsibility, not the Congress's responsibility, to figure out how to 
get the security on the ground correct.
  For some time, I have refrained from any prescriptive outline as to 
what I think should be done because we cannot dictate that kind of 
policy in the Senate. That is a matter for Presidents to determine, 
administrations to lead. But I am very concerned that we are on a 
downward spiral in terms of the prospects of getting it right in Iraq.
  Now, it seems to me, right now, we are not getting the job done. It 
is not because of the lack of bravery and commitment and steadfastness 
of American troops or American personnel. These are serious people. 
These are brave young women and men. It seems to me they have been put 
in a circumstance that makes it very difficult for them to succeed.
  Let me lay out very briefly now, and in greater detail next week, 
what I believe we need to do to succeed.
  The bottom line is pretty simple. Three groups can provide security 
in Iraq: First, the Iraqis themselves; second, our U.S. troops and the 
few coalition partners we have with us there; and third, there is the 
possibility of a real international coalition of military forces.
  Over the long term, obviously, the single best way to get security 
right in Iraq is for the Iraqis to provide that security through 
indigenous police forces and an indigenous army. That is our goal. 
Everyone agrees upon that goal. And it is their responsibility, 
ultimately. They can tell the good guys from the bad guys better than 
we can. But here is the rub: It takes time to build an effective--an 
effective--indigenous police force or military force.
  When I was in Iraq in June, I was told by our experts there on the 
ground that it would take 5 years to recruit and train the 75,000 Iraqi 
police force that was needed. I was told it would take 3 years to 
recruit and train just 40,000 persons for the Army of Iraq--5 years for 
the police force and 3 years just to train 40,000 Iraqi soldiers.
  We can and we are putting that effort into overdrive. Let's 
understand the risks that go into putting it into overdrive. The faster 
we go on our training, the poorer the training and less legitimate the 
police and army will be. Putting them in charge prematurely is a recipe 
for failure. They will lose the confidence of the Iraqi people, and we 
will lose the ability to recruit them to participate in the police 
force and/or in the military force.
  Although it makes sense for us to try to speed up as rapidly as we 
can the training and the deployment of Iraqis, it is going to take time 
for it to work. Even on steroids, we are going to need a year at least 
before we can hand over the keys of security to the Iraqi people, the 
Iraqi military, and the Iraqi police.
  The real question is, What do we do in the meantime? The reason I am 
so concerned about the meantime is that within a year, before we are 
even able, under this extended and intensive effort, to speed up the 
training and turn over the responsibility to the Iraqis, if we continue 
to have the attitude that pervades in Iraq today, or is beginning to 
pervade and is beginning to pervade in the United States that this is a 
difficult, if not hopeless, task, we are unlikely to accomplish the 
circumstance of being able to put the Iraqis in a position even a year 
from now. We have to do something now to make things better on the 
ground.
  That brings us to option No. 2, and that is flood the zone with more 
U.S. troops. Putting in more troops now will allow us to get them out a 
lot faster. We especially need MPs, special forces, and civil affairs 
experts.
  I listened to my friend John McCain--he and I have been on the same 
page on this issue for the last 5 months--I listened to him yesterday 
make a very compelling speech about the need to immediately increase, 
not decrease, the number of American forces. We understand--John McCain 
and I and others--that is not a very popular thing to say.
  Guys like me who thought the administration went about this war 
wrongly in the first place are in the dubious position of being in the 
Chamber suggesting to the Americans who don't like the war that we 
should put more forces in Iraq immediately in order to take them out 
totally sooner while the administration announces that in the rotation 
of American forces through next spring, we are going to rotate troops, 
but we are also going to draw down the total number of American troops. 
It is somewhat perverse. Here are Biden and McCain talking about 
putting in more troops, and the administration is talking about taking 
out more troops.

  The irony here is, we do not have control of the security on the 
ground. To the extent we don't, for every Chinook that is shot down, 
for every American who is killed, every Iraqi who is blown up, every 
Iraqi policeman who goes to a barracks now and is blown up, every Red 
Cross depot that is exploded--every one of those events undermines the 
willingness of the United States, the Iraqis, and the world to stay the 
course and do the job in Iraq.
  I might note parenthetically, my real problem is the President has 
yet to tell the American people why this is so important. He keeps 
talking about and using the phrase, which is very catchy and very 
compelling--I am paraphrasing--if we don't fight the terrorists in 
Baghdad, we will fight them in New York, Washington, Seattle, or 
wherever. There is some truth to that.
  The American people are a lot smarter. If you ask the American people 
if they think if we succeed in Baghdad or if we succeed in Iraq that is 
going to end terrorism in the United States, or conversely, whether or 
not that is the source of terrorism and the threat to the United 
States, about 60 percent of the American people will say no, they don't 
think that is it. They understand it. They understand the next 
terrorist attack, God forbid, in the United States is more likely to 
come from Somalia, Philippines, Iran, or any number of other countries, 
than it is going to be from something that has been planned in Baghdad.
  That is not to suggest there is not terror in Baghdad; there is. But 
there are the beginnings of a classic counterinsurgency in Baghdad, 
aided and abetted by international terrorist operations that are 
beginning to mobilize in that area.
  The real reason we have to succeed in Iraq and the real reason we had 
better get it straight pretty quickly before we lose the support of the 
American people is that if we fail to secure the peace in Baghdad and 
in Iraq, we are going to see a significantly emboldened and radicalized 
Iran with over 70 million people. We are going to see the prospect of--
that fancy word we use in foreign policy circles--modernity in the 
Middle East evaporate. The idea that

[[Page S14109]]

there are going to be more modern democratic states is going to 
diminish, not increase. We are going to see, I predict, a 
reconsideration of the attitude about whether to look East or West in 
Turkey from Ankara from an Islamic government. We are going to see the 
circumstances in Pakistan deteriorate because, sure as the devil, if 
things deteriorate in Iraq and we lose the peace there, we are going to 
lose it in Afghanistan as well. We will have two failed states.
  It is absolutely essential that we succeed, even though most of us--I 
shouldn't say most; I speak for myself--even though I did not agree 
with the way the President went about the conduct of this war. The 
facts are, we are there and we must succeed.
  What do we do? We need more civil affairs officers, we need more 
special forces, and we need more MPs. But this is hard stuff. Our 
forces are stretched way thin in Iraq already and in Afghanistan. We 
would have to bring folks back to Iraq for second or third tours, and 
that is a decision no one wants to make. We have to at least consider 
it if it would make our troops safer now, increase the chances of 
success and security in the triangle now being more likely than not 
because otherwise we just dribble this away.
  Short of bringing in more U.S. troops, there are things we can do 
with our forces to get a better grip on security in the region. We have 
to deal with those ammo depots. There are more than 600,000 tons of 
ordnance in Iraq. That is one-third of all the munitions the United 
States of America possesses. Of that, less than 100,000 tons have been 
destroyed. There are also thousands of shoulder-fired missiles on the 
loose in Iraq, one of which probably brought down the helicopter last 
week. We are offering to buy those missiles back at 500 bucks a pop.

  A recent Newsweek or Time Magazine article this week pointed out a 
young Iraqi came up to an American military person and said: Do you 
want to buy one of these missiles?
  He said: Can you get more of them?
  He said: Yes, I can get more of them.
  He got a whole truckload of them and brought them back. I think he 
got paid $40,000 for them. He said he would have brought back more 
except the truck was not big enough.
  We have tens, hundreds, if not thousands, of these shoulder-held 
missiles on the loose in Iraq. We are paying $500 for the retrieval of 
each one, and more than 350 have been turned in. The black market price 
for purchasing those shoulder-held missile launchers is $5,000 a 
missile. That is kind of hard to compete with.
  If we had more forces in place, we could do a better job of guarding 
those depots, but even without those forces we should be getting Iraqis 
to fence off the depots, put sensors on the gates, put more UAVs in the 
air to patrol them.
  We have to destroy the weapons faster. Let me acknowledge this is not 
a simple task. There are hundreds of depots, many of them used, and we 
have to be very careful in destroying them. We need to protect civilian 
populations, and we lack enough demolition experts who know how to 
destroy this stuff without starting a California-size blaze. The 
administration has to make securing these weapons a top priority. We 
need to have better intelligence on the ground. It is really hard for 
our folks to tell the good guys from the bad guys and that is where 
intelligence comes in.
  The Army itself is finding that our intelligence specialists and the 
reserves trained in civilian affairs and psychological operations do 
not get the training they need before they are sent to Iraq, so they 
are not producing very good intelligence.
  We do not have enough competent interpreters. We have to get help to 
rebuild Iraq from their own intelligence network. Here, too, we need a 
much greater sense of urgency.
  The second way to do this is for the United States to do it itself, 
but it is going to take more personnel and a different kind of 
personnel to do that. The President has made clear he is not going to 
do that.
  There is another way to buy time until the Iraqis can fend for 
themselves, and that is to make Iraq the world's responsibility, not 
just our own. We had that opportunity before the war, and we blew it. 
We had that opportunity after the war, and we blew it. At the end of 
the summer, when it became clear the security situation was not getting 
better, the administration decided it had to reach out, but it did not 
do it very well. The President's speech to the United Nations was not 
very well received, so for a third time the administration squandered 
the opportunity to get international support in significant ways.
  This is not totally our problem, but for the most part only Americans 
are being killed. I am convinced we have one last shot to bring the 
world in to Iraq, and we must do everything in our power to seize that 
opportunity. This is the meat of what I have to say. I would like to 
see President Bush not figuratively but literally go to Europe, call a 
summit and ask for help. We will have to give up more authority in 
order to get that help, but as I keep saying, and I have been saying 
for the last 6 months, we should stop treating Iraq as if it is some 
sort of prize we won. It is not authority I am looking to possess. We 
would be giving up nothing as it relates to our security interests.

  There are three things we can and should do to get more countries 
invested in Iraq with troops, police, and resources. The first is we 
should make Iraq a NATO mission. The model we should be using is not 
Afghanistan but Bosnia, Kosovo. There is a NATO general in charge of 
all the troops there. It happens to be an American most of the time 
because America runs NATO; America commands NATO. So it should be a 
NATO operation.
  We are not getting other NATO forces in because they do not want to 
work alongside of and/or under the command of a totally US-led 
operation that is not a NATO operation. So we should make Iraq a NATO 
mission.
  General Abizaid would be put in charge of the new NATO command 
because the way it always works with NATO, as it does with the U.N., 
whoever is putting up most of the responsibility, putting up most of 
the money, most of the troops, gets to be the one in charge. So this 
should be a NATO operation.
  Secondly, we should create a high commissioner for Iraq who reports 
not just to President Bush or the Secretary of Defense, but who reports 
to an international board of directors, reports to the NATO countries, 
reports to those countries that are participating. That is what we did 
in Kosovo. We never lost control of Kosovo, but there was a high 
commissioner. The high commissioner was not an American. The first one 
happened to be a Frenchman. The second one was a Dutchman. They 
reported to all of the capitals that were participating in the 
reconstruction of Kosovo.
  We have a long way to go in Kosovo and a long way to go in Bosnia, 
but thank God, knock on wood, there are no American casualties. There 
have not been American casualties as a consequence of hostile fire. 
People are not killing one another in those two countries. A lot more 
has to be done. There is no pure democracy there, but there are not a 
million people in the mountains about to freeze, there are not 250,000 
dead, and Americans are not being shot. The place is secure, and we are 
only paying 15 percent of the price in terms of money and troops. If we 
want to get the rest of the world into this deal, because--and people 
say, well, Joe, why would they even contemplate coming in? They are 
kind of happy to see us bog down.
  The reason they would be happy to come in if they had the right 
environment is because they have as much at stake in a failed state of 
Iraq as we do. For the Europeans, Iraq is their front yard. It is our 
backyard. We have to create the environment in which they are willing 
to participate. So instead of having Mr. Bremer running the operation--
and maybe Mr. Bremer should be the high commissioner. The phrase for 
that is ``double hatted.'' There has to be a much larger investment by 
other countries. In return, they have to have much greater 
participation.
  As much as people will not like hearing me say this, the second thing 
we have to do is change Bremer's function into that of a high 
commissioner reporting to Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, et cetera. 
Otherwise, we will not get the kind of participation we need.
  Thirdly, we should transform the Iraqi Governing Council into a 
provisional government with greater sovereign powers. Putting NATO in 
charge

[[Page S14110]]

of security in Iraq offers the possibility of building a truly 
multilateral force, with far more participation from Europeans, Asians, 
and neighboring countries. More countries will take part because they 
would be reporting to the North Atlantic Council, not to the Pentagon.
  We are the North Atlantic Council as well. It is a model, as I said, 
that worked in the Balkans and now is beginning to work in Afghanistan. 
In the Balkans, for example, many non-NATO countries, including Russia 
and some Arab states, joined the effort because they were not joining 
the U.S. effort; they were joining a NATO effort.
  The United States, in all of these models I am suggesting--and they 
are relatively drastic changes--would retain operational control on the 
ground with General Abizaid as head of this new NATO command. And we 
retain effective control in NATO, where the United States is the lead 
player.

  Creating an International High Commissioner for Iraq and putting him 
or her in charge of reconstruction would also attract far more 
international participation. The recent donors conference in Madrid was 
a painful example of the price we pay for doing everything ourselves.
  When you go into a country unilaterally, you get to handle the peace 
unilaterally. One we didn't need, the other we do.
  Typically, as in the Balkans, the United States covers reconstruction 
efforts--pays for about 25 percent of the reconstruction costs after a 
major conflict. By that ratio, the $20 billion, or $18-point-something 
billion Congress just approved for Iraq reconstruction should have 
generated, in Madrid, about $60 billion from the rest of the world. 
Instead, we got $13 billion, of which $9 billion was loans.
  As long as the CPA is the sole deciding authority on how Iraq will be 
rebuilt, other countries will be reluctant to fork over real money. 
They want a real say in how the money is spent.
  Again, look at the model in the Balkans. Look at the model in gulf 
war No. 1, George the first, the first gulf war. We paid only about 20 
percent of the total cost. The rest of the world came in and made up 
the remainder of that $60 billion.
  What are we doing now? Again, in my view, the model we are operating 
under is broken. We should fix it. Otherwise, we own it all. This is 
not something we want to own alone.
  If we go the route I am suggesting of a special representative who 
reports to the U.N. Security Council, of which we are a member--either 
way, that could be Bremer. Bremer could be double-hatted.
  In Bosnia, the High Commissioner reports to a special steering 
committee led by the United States and the EEU. In Kosovo, the 
Secretary General of the United Nations designated a Special 
Representative who reports to the U.N. Security Council.
  I ask a rhetorical question to any Americans who may be listening. 
Would it offend you that a high commissioner reporting to the U.N. 
Security Council was the model we were using? Would you be angry that 
we didn't own it all, that we weren't the one having to put up all the 
money, making all the decisions, and taking all the casualties? What is 
our reluctance?
  I said, either way, in a de facto sense, we remain in charge.
  Finally, it seems to me we should turn the Iraqi Governing Council 
into a true provisional government with more sovereign powers. This 
transfer of sovereignty should not be held hostage to the very 
important but very complicated and time-consuming process of writing a 
new constitution.
  I happened to hear General Clark this morning on one of the morning 
news shows. He pointed this out. I thought it was a great example. He 
said: It took us 7 years to write our Constitution. Actually, it took a 
little longer. How would we have felt had the French said: We helped 
liberate you from the British; we are going to stay here as the 
regional power while you write your Constitution? I am not so sure we 
would have greeted that with a warm embrace.
  So in order for this Iraqi Governing Council, which has not been all 
that responsible up to now in my view, to be able to function, it seems 
to me there has to be a transfer of authority that, in fact, should not 
be held hostage to the constitution having to be written first. It may 
require some changes in this provisional government to make it more 
representative, but that is what we should get on with now. Nothing 
would send a clearer message to the Iraqi people that the future is 
theirs to build and to inherit, and nothing would make it clearer to 
them that the enemies of that future are Saddam loyalists and 
international terrorists who are killing our troops, other than having 
sovereignty transferred to the Governing Council.
  In conclusion, I am suggesting that the model we are operating under 
be changed.
  No. 1, sovereignty, even requiring, if need be, more representation 
on the Governing Council, but more sovereignty transferred to the 
Governing Council.
  No. 2, a high commissioner, in place of the system we have now, on 
the Bosnian model, reporting to more than one world capital--that may 
be Bremer being double-hatted, but it would be a high commissioner--and 
that to bring in the rest of the world to participate.
  No. 3, that the military operation should be under NATO command and 
NATO responsibility.
  I think by doing those things, we communicate several very important, 
practical, and substantive messages:
  No. 1, we, the United States, have no designs on Iraq. We know we 
don't, but I am not sure the Iraqi people know we don't.
  No. 2, it communicates the notion that we are not the sole 
determining power in that country, that it is not solely our problem, 
it is the world's problem.
  No. 3, that the military operation is not a U.S. operation, it is a 
NATO operation.
  All of those things, I believe, would significantly improve the 
prospects of success and significantly diminish the prospect that we 
will carry the entire load for as long as it takes.
  I will elaborate on those points in more detail next week. But it 
seems to me we have to change the model now and begin the process. I 
thank the chairman for allowing me to speak and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that I 
think is coming up this afternoon. The reason I would like to have 
permission of the Senate to speak about it now is that I will not be 
able to be in the Chamber because of the Medicare conference.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am speaking on the issue of the sense-
of-the-Senate resolution by Senators Daschle, Enzi, Johnson, and Thomas 
on the legislation that is now on the books called country-of-origin 
labeling.
  I believe the American consumer has a right to know the country of 
origin of the meat they are purchasing, just as consumers know the 
origin of their clothes, their cars, and their cameras. Even the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture cites in its rule that recently came out that 
the survey findings show that country-of-origin labeling is of interest 
to the majority of consumers.
  I said even the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said this because 
I happen to believe, in observing the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
over the last 12 months, that it has worked against the country-of-
origin labeling legislation ever since it passed into law as part of 
the 2002 farm bill.
  The initial cost estimates of the U.S. Department of Agriculture were 
outlandish, and thankfully the General Accounting Office called the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture on the basis of its claims. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture then revised its cost estimates by lowering 
the potential cost of the program. This newly revised figure allowed 
for an overall cost range of between $582 million and $3.9 billion in 
the first years.
  Upon closer examination, even the revised cost estimates of the 
Department of Agriculture appear to consistently overestimate the costs 
involved in implementing the country-of-origin labeling law due to the 
estimate's reliance upon industry-provided sources of material--not 
independent but from industry.
  Clearly, the industry which is vehemently opposed to this 
legislation, it

[[Page S14111]]

seems to me, would provide information which is self-serving. For that 
reason, I have a hard time accepting even the newest range of cost 
estimates even though it is far less than what came out last spring.
  I am not here to say that everything the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has done on this legislation is bad. The recently published 
proposed rules allow for the potential use of self-certification 
through affidavits to transfer original origin information from one 
level of the supply chain to the next. That leniency on self-
certification is a good decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Also, the Department estimates producers will have the least 
recordkeeping burden, with estimates that range between $180 to $443 
per facility.
  The reason I am giving U.S. Department of Agriculture credit for in 
part doing the right thing is that I want this process to continue. 
Clearly, I don't agree with every aspect of the recently published 
mandatory country-of-origin labeling law proposed rule, but at least 
the Department of Agriculture has given us something on which to chew. 
It is a decent start. We now have a 60-day comment period to improve 
the proposed rule.
  I intend to not only do that myself but I intend to also let the 
Department know my views on it, and I am inviting Iowans--or let us say 
citizens from any State--to send in their information to the Department 
of Agriculture. They ought to even let their Congressmen and Senators 
know what they have told the Department about their view of this rule. 
This gives all of us a chance to get it even closer to the intent of 
the authors of the original legislation and to ensure that these rules 
and regulations aren't overly burdensome to the family farmer.
  I believe we need to let the process go forward. The only way to do 
it is to protect funding for the mandatory country-of-origin labeling. 
That funding is in dispute because of action taken by the House of 
Representatives.
  I hope through this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we send a clear 
signal to the conferees that we should fund this program; in other 
words, funds going forward and the enforcement of the law that this 
Congress adopted in 2002 on the labeling of meat products.
  It will be an awfully serious situation if we don't fund these rules 
and move forward with the enforcement of this law. People who don't 
want to fund it do not like the law, but it puts our entire food chain 
into jeopardy, on the one hand having to meet a law that went into 
effect in September 2002, and then in the next 12 months not having 
money to provide for the regulations to be carried out and make sure 
everybody knows exactly how this law is going to be enforced.
  People who are opposed to this legislation ought to, if they do not 
like the law--obviously, I do like the law, and that is why I am for 
their sense-of-the-Senate resolution--introduce legislation and have it 
debated to see if they can repeal the old law. But they should not put 
the farmers, the processors, the wholesalers, the retailers, and 
eventually our consumers in jeopardy because of not having the money to 
move forward.
  Not funding this is--as the other body has not funded it--subterfuge 
for the legislation not moving forward. Yet everybody is going to be 
involved with having a law on the books that is going into effect next 
year. The law is still the law. It is our job, if we put a law on the 
books, to make sure that it is enforced. If we don't want to enforce 
that law, we ought to repeal the law.

  This issue of self-certification is very important. Originally, the 
idea from some people in the Department or the industry was that there 
ought to be third-party verification of the origin of the meat that the 
consumer is going to eat. Did it come from another country or did it 
come from America? Was it raised and processed here?
  If you have third-party verification, you can understand why it costs 
the economy billions and billions of dollars. But that isn't how the 
Federal Government deals with the family farmers of America.
  For all of the decades of farm programs we have had, the Federal 
Government has always dealt with the individual family farmer as an 
honest person. They would ask for certification from the farmer's point 
of view as to the law as he farmed, as he raised his crops, as he 
qualified for whatever help that might be involved from the Federal 
Treasury, and that the farmer was abiding by that law. There were 
always periodic and random audits that a farmer, including this farmer, 
would have to comply with, just as there might be a random audit of 
your income tax by the IRS. But the Federal Government has always 
assumed the farmer was honest when he certified something.
  If that principle has been good for farm programs for the last 60 or 
70 years, why isn't it good enough for a farmer claiming that livestock 
was raised in America and processed in America or whether it came 
across the line from some other country?
  The last point I make is for the consumers of America and for the 
retailers of America.
  For all of the years I have been in Congress, I have never heard from 
Montgomery Ward, Sears & Roebuck, Kohl Department Stores, or from Wal-
Mart--I have never heard from anybody in America who processes or sells 
retail products--saying that products which come into this country from 
some other country shouldn't be labeled. I have never heard those 
business people complain about that. But all of a sudden, there is 
something to protect food for the consumer--just as we do with the 
consumer and any other retail product, not just to protect the consumer 
but to inform the consumer. Where does this product come from? T-shirts 
from Taiwan, South Korea, and China--you know it; it is on the label.
  I have never heard any retailer or any wholesaler complain about 
that. But now that we are going to give the consumer the same knowledge 
about where their food comes from--from America or from some other 
country--somehow this is a big problem. You hear it from the packers, 
you hear it from the processors, and you hear it from the wholesaler 
and the retailer. For some ungodly reason, I am even hearing it from 
the national pork producers. I do not hear it from the Iowa pork 
producers. Are the national pork producers in bed with the big packers, 
the big processors, and the big retailers of America? Should the 
consumers of America not know whether that hog came from Canada or from 
a family farm in America?
  The consumers are entitled to the same knowledge about the origin of 
the products they eat as what they wear on their body or what they use 
for a tool in their workplace. I think we need to move ahead with this 
country-of-origin labeling. That is why I hope my colleagues will 
support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution for a law that is on the 
books--a law that is going to go into effect in September of next year.
  Why don't the people in the Congress of the United States who do not 
like that law and the interest groups outside that do not like that law 
have guts enough to come forward and repeal the law and have a clear-
cut victory or a clear-cut defeat? Let us move on. Let us not have the 
subterfuge of not funding it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to the Senator from 
Iowa for his statement. I support the amendment that will be offered by 
the Democratic leader in a short time. It is important the American 
public recognizes speaking on behalf of the American consumer is a 
farmer, a Senator, but his first vocation is that as a farmer. We are 
so proud. I very much appreciate the strong, articulate statement of 
the Senator from Iowa on this most important subject. It affects my 
family, my children, my grandchildren. As the Senator said, if we buy a 
pair of pajamas, we know where they are made. When we buy a peach or 
beef steak, we should know where that comes from, also. I appreciate 
the statement.
  I say through the Chair, to the chairman of the subcommittee, on our 
side, it appears we have about five more amendments. We have the Dorgan 
amendment, which we have heard about. We heard Senator Leahy will offer 
an amendment on conservation technical assistance. Senator Daschle will 
offer a country-of-origin amendment. Senator Feingold will offer a Buy 
America amendment. Senator Jeffords may offer an amendment on historic 
bonds. We are moving down the road with this legislation.

[[Page S14112]]

  Mr. President, as I have already indicated, I rise in support of the 
Daschle amendment, which will be offered in the next little bit, and to 
express strong support of the Senate for the country-of-origin labeling 
requirements of the 2002 farm bill. I have a letter from agricultural 
and consumer groups across the country that support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record. It is 
dated October 9 and is signed by 170 different organizations from all 
over America. These are organizations that cover the width and breadth 
of this land, including Oregon Cranberry Farmers' Association, 
Sustainable Earth, Texas Farmers Union, Montana Cattlemen's 
Association, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Georgia Peanut Commission, 
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, American Meat Goat 
Association, Arkansas Farmers Union, American Corn Growers Association. 
It is important we recognize this is representative of groups all over 
America that support this amendment. This list could be multiplied by 
10 if these organizations were given a little more time to gather 
signatures.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  October 9, 2003.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We are writing in representation of millions 
     of consumers and producers across America to express our 
     strong support for full funding in the fiscal year 2004 
     agriculture appropriations bill for implementation of 
     country-of-origin labeling (COOL).
       Senator Daschle, Senator Enzi and Senator Johnson are 
     prepared to offer a Sense of the Senate amendment instructing 
     the agriculture appropriations conferees to remove language 
     inserted into the House of Representatives spending bill, 
     which prohibits the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     from spending funds to implement COOL. We strongly urge you 
     to support the efforts of Senators Daschle, Enzi and Johnson 
     when the amendment is introduced.
       A report recently released by the General Accounting Office 
     (GAO) refutes the number one argument of opponents of COOL by 
     clearly stating the $2 billion price tag attached by USDA was 
     based on arbitrary assumptions and not well supported. Given 
     this recent report and the fact that USDA has yet to release 
     the preliminary rules of implementation, it is simply the 
     right thing to do to maintain implementation funding and keep 
     COOL.
       Country-of-origin labeling is designed to provided 
     information to consumers and help U.S. producers promote 
     their own products in the marketplace. It does not need to be 
     burdensome or expensive to producers. We believe that, given 
     a choice, consumers will choose to purchase U.S.-produced 
     products. COOL does not violate any of our trade agreements. 
     In fact, the GAO report cited 48 of our 57 trading partners 
     that require country-of-origin labeling on one or more of the 
     covered commodities included in the U.S. law. Without 
     mandatory COOL, consumers in the United States will be denied 
     the ability to differentiate between U.S. and imported 
     products, while consumers in our trading partners' countries 
     maintain that right.
       Please vote in support of the Daschle-Enzi-Johnson Sense of 
     the Senate to maintain funding of COOL.
           Sincerely,
         National Farmers Union; American Farm Bureau Federation; 
           R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America; Consumer 
           Federation of America; Alabama Farmers Federation; 
           Alabama Farmers Federation; Alabama Peanut Producers; 
           American Agriculture Movement of Arkansas; American 
           Agriculture Movement of Missouri; American Agriculture 
           Movement of Oklahoma; American Agriculture Movement, 
           Inc.; American Corn Growers Assoc. of Nebraska; 
           American Corn Growers Association; American Meat Goat 
           Association.
         Arkansas Farmers Union; Beartooth Stockgrowers 
           Association; Burleigh County Farm Bureau (ND); C.A.S.A. 
           del Llano (TX); Calaveras County Cattlemen's 
           Association; California Farmers Union; Cape Code 
           Cranberry Growers' Association; Center for Rural 
           Affairs (NE); Churches' Center for Land and People 
           (WI); Citizens Organized Acting Together; Cochise-
     Graham Cattle Growers Assoc. (AZ); Community Alliance with 
     Family Farmers (CA); Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers Assoc. 
     (MT).
         Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Foundation; Dakota Resource 
           Council (ND); Dakota Rural Action (SD); Eagle County 
           Cattlemen's Association (CO); Fall River & Big Valley 
           Cattlemen's Assoc. (CA); Florida Farm Bureau 
           Federation; Florida Farmers, Inc.; Florida Fruit and 
           Vegetable Assoc.; Florida Tomato Exchange; Georgia 
           Peanut Commission; Grant County Cattlemen's Assoc. 
           (WA); Holy Cross Cattlemen's Assoc. (CO); Idaho Farmers 
           Union.
         Illinois Farmers Union; Illinois National Farmers 
           Organization; Illinois Stewardship Alliance; 
           Independent Cattlemen's Assoc. of Texas; Indiana 
           Farmers Union; Indiana National Farmers Organization; 
           Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; Iowa 
           Citizens for Community Improvement; Iowa Farmers Union; 
           Kansas Cattlemen's Association; Kansas Farmers Union; 
           Kansas Hereford Association.
         Kansas National Farmers Organization; Kemper County Farm 
           Bureau (MS); Kit Carson County Cattlemen's (CO); Land 
           Stewardship Project (MN); Lincoln County Stockmans 
           Assoc. (CO); Livestock Marketing Association; Madera 
           County Cattlemen's Assoc. (CA); Malheur County 
           Cattlemen's Assoc. (OR); McPherson County Farmers Union 
           (KS); Merced-Mariposa Cattlemen's Assoc. (CA); Michigan 
           Farmers Union; Mid-Nebraska Pride.
         Minnesota Farmers Union; Missouri Farmers Union; Missouri 
           National Farmers Organization; Missouri Rural Crisis 
           Center; Missouri Stockgrowers Assocaition; Modoc County 
           Cattlemen's Assoc. (CA); Montana Agri-Women; Montana 
           Cattlemen's Association; Montana Farmers Union; Montana 
           National Farmers Organizaton; Montana Stockgrowers 
           Association; National Association of Counties.
         National Assoc. of Farmer Elected Committees; National 
           Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture; National Catholic 
           Rural Life Conference; National Consumers League; 
           National Family Farm Coalition; National Farmers 
           Organization; National Potato Council; Nebraska Farmers 
           Union; Nebraska Grange; Nebraska Livestock Marketing 
           Association; Nebraska Women Involved in Farm Economics; 
           Nevada Live Stock Association.
         New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association; New Mexico Farm 
           and Livestock Bureau; New Mexico Public Lands Council; 
           New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; New York National 
           Farmers Organization; North Dakota Farmers Union; North 
           Dakota Livestock Marketing Assoc.; North Dakota 
           Stockmen's Association; Northern Plains Resource 
           Council; Ohio Farmers Union; Oklahoma Farmers Union; 
           Oregon Cranberry Farmers' Alliance.
         Oregon Farm Bureau Federation; Oregon Farmers Union; 
           Oregon Livestock Producers Association; Organization 
           for Competitive Markets; Park County Stockgrowers 
           Assoc. (MT); Pennsylvania Farmers Union; Platte County 
           Farm Bureau (NE); Powder River Basin Resource Council; 
           Public Citizen; Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Rural 
           Advancement Foundation International-USA; Rural Roots 
           (ID).
         South Dakota Farmers Union; South Dakota Stockgrowers 
           Association; South Eastern Montana Livestock Assoc.; 
           South Texas Hereford Association; Southeast Wyoming 
           Cattlefeeders Association; Southern Peanut Farmers 
           Federation; Southern Research and Development Corp. 
           (LA); Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group; 
           Soybean Producers of America; Spokane Cattlemen's 
           Association (WA); Stevens County Cattlemen's 
           Association (WA); Sustainable Earth (IN).
         Sustainable Food Center (TX); Texas Farmers Union; Union 
           County Cattlemen's Association (OR); Utah Farmers 
           Union; Virginia Angus Association; Washington 
           Cattlemen's Association; Washington Farmers Union; Way 
           Out West Rural Action Group (ID); Western Organization 
           of Resource Councils; Wisconsin Farmers Union; Wyoming 
           Stockgrowers Association; Yuma County Cattlemen's 
           Association (CO).

  Mr. REID. The reason the organizations signed up for this is because 
they support the right of American consumers to know the origin of the 
food we eat. In Nevada, the Cattleman's Association and Nevada 
Livestock Association strongly support this legislation.
  We ask, after having heard the strong statement of the chairman of 
the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who opposes this? That is 
interesting. It is the House of Representatives. It is the law that 
there be country-of-origin labeling.
  The House of Representatives, in their version of this appropriations 
bill, wants to prevent any moneys going forward from the Federal 
Government to enforce the country-of-origin labeling. That is unfair.
  Who does not support it? The House of Representatives. As I 
indicated, in their appropriations bill dealing with agriculture, they 
inserted a little provision that would not allow us to implement 
country-of-origin labeling. This amendment would silence our effort to 
inform consumers about the food they eat by telling them where their 
meat, lamb, fish, and vegetables originate.
  I was happy for my wife to buy me a pair of shoes. This pair of 
shoes, by the

[[Page S14113]]

way, is very comfortable. I stand a lot. These shoes are made in 
America. Allen Emmonds is the brand name. I had a choice. There was a 
Brazilian brand made for people who stand a lot like I do. There was a 
French brand. I bought American. I had a choice. The choice was very 
easy. I was happy to have that choice.
  If I can go to a store and find out where the shoe is made, shouldn't 
I be able to go to a grocery store and find out where the steak I am 
going to buy comes from or the roast or the potatoes or the 
cauliflower, whatever the case might be. If you can do it for shoes, 
certainly it would seem you can do it for food.
  This amendment in the House version of the bill would silence our 
effort to inform consumers about the food they eat. That is wrong. I 
cannot imagine anyone who would not want consumers to know what they 
are eating and from where it comes.
  Who could be behind the position of the House? Is it just a bunch of 
very educated, in the way of farm products, Members of the House of 
Representatives? Is it just a group of enlightened staff people who 
suddenly said, we do not want them to enforce that law; it is not good 
politics; it is not good public policy for people to know where their 
food comes from.
  In fact, why don't we just have Americans continue labeling this 
stuff ``American'' when it is not. That is what is happening now. That 
is a reason we need to stop this.
  Why, then, is the House of Representatives so involved in this issue? 
It is quite clear. The authors of this House provision are people who 
have had looking over their shoulder people from the four major 
meatpackers in this country that oppose this labeling. This legislation 
comes from those packers. These packers, while they may not have a 
monopoly, have about as close as you can come to a monopoly. The 
packers control about 80 percent of the beef in the U.S. market.
  If you think they had some hand in the House of Representatives 
putting this provision in the legislation, of course they did. The 
packers do not like the country-of-origin labeling because they want to 
continue to sell imported beef, in effect, made in the USA. They want 
to trick, to deceive, American consumers into believing they are buying 
food that is grown and made in America because it gives them an 
advantage to do so, just like my shoes, just like my American shoes.
  Nope, this suit I am wearing is not made in America; most of my suits 
are. When I have a choice, I want to buy ``Made in America.'' I want to 
do the same with my food--or at least have the knowledge of where my 
food comes from. As I said, most of the suits I wear are made in 
America. Hickey Freeman, made in America.
  I am looking forward to an amendment that will be offered, as I 
indicated, by my friend from Wisconsin about buying American.
  That is what is behind the House of Representatives' provision in the 
bill. They simply have been overwhelmed by the four meatpackers in this 
country that control 80 percent of the beef in our market. Of course, 
that is not what the critics of the country of origin say to the 
public, but the public arguments are not better. Critics of the program 
claim it is too expensive to put into effect. With a multitrillion-
dollar budget, it is not too expensive. The General Accounting Office 
recently found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate was 
arbitrary and not well supported. Most cost estimates place the costs 
much lower than the Department of Agriculture. The Department of 
Agriculture has made other mistakes.
  Some argue that the country-of-origin label violates trade 
agreements. That is a specious argument because 48 of our 57 trading 
partners already require country-of-origin labeling for their 
commodities.

  This allows foreign consumers to choose whether they want to support 
their own farmers and ranchers. American consumers deserve the same 
choice. The House of Representatives, with its country-of-origin rider, 
would deny that right for American consumers.
  I believe, as some of my colleagues have said and will say, that U.S. 
farmers and ranchers produce the highest, best quality food in the 
world. I also believe that if American consumers are given the power of 
information, and the right to know, they will choose to buy American 
food products.
  As many of my colleagues will recall, we had a full and extensive 
debate about country-of-origin labeling during the consideration of the 
farm bill. It was one of the most hotly debated provisions during the 
House and Senate conference on the bill, again, because of the power of 
the four meatpackers in this country. The outcome of all that debate--a 
county-of-origin labeling requirement--was a victory for American 
consumers and American farmers and ranchers.
  The House, with its anticonsumer, antifarmer, antirancher rider, is 
trying to sneak a provision through the back door that they could not 
prevail on in open debate. We know what the rules are on appropriations 
bills. It is very difficult to strike things out of bills.
  Americans have a right to know what they are eating. This harmful 
House rider would deny them that right.
  When the opportunity comes, I will support, with a ``yea'' vote, the 
Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise also to talk a little bit about 
country-of-origin labeling. I guess I ought to tell the Senate, first, 
why I am inflicting my opinions on this subject on the Senate.
  I have the honor of chairing the Subcommittee on Marketing, 
Inspection, and Product Promotion of the Agriculture Committee. I was 
not told, when I was given that assignment, that it included 
supervising the implementation of the country-of-origin labeling law, a 
law the Congress passed before I was here and on which I did not have 
an opportunity to express my opinion.
  I know feelings run high regarding that law. I have had the 
opportunity to study the issue, and I have tried, from the beginning, 
to be an honest broker in this whole process, just to try to see that 
this law--which was passed before I got here and which is part of the 
law now--is implemented in a way that accomplishes what it was 
originally intended to accomplish.
  In the course of doing that, I have, of course, read that statute. I 
have had a chance to talk to several of the Senators who were 
instrumental in writing it. It is pretty clear, from the statute, the 
gist of what the Congress intended. It is like reading an essay 
quickly; you sort of get the gist of it.
  The problem I will get to in a minute is, when you go into the 
details of it, a lot of it is rather vague. That is going to raise 
problems in the implementation unless we do something. But I think the 
gist of it is pretty clear. I am going to restrict my remarks to beef 
even though, of course, the bill covers a whole wide range of different 
products. But for simplicity's sake, I will talk about beef.

  From the bill, it is pretty clearly the intention is that all beef be 
labeled, that there be specific labels for American beef, that we begin 
to control what people are calling American beef.
  The legislation references and, in some respects, in some sense, 
seems to want to be modeled on some existing labeling programs. But, as 
I will say in a minute, it does not make clear exactly what the 
legislation is. It puts the burden of compliance on the retailers, 
which is very significant in getting us where we are now with the 
implementation of it.
  The legislation seems to contemplate that it be enforceable by the 
Department with some kind of a grace period. There is a section in the 
legislation relating to the grace period.
  So if you read the legislation, it seems to me the gist of it, of 
what it intended, is pretty clear. I think what I have said is 
consistent with the conversations I have had with Senators who were 
very responsible and have acted in good faith from the beginning in 
writing this legislation and are now interested in its implementation.
  The problem is, the legislation is vague in a lot of respects. It 
imposes a very serious potential liability on people, but in certain 
crucial aspects--in fact, in a lot of crucial aspects--it is really not 
clear exactly what they have to do to avoid that liability.
  It is not that anybody intended the vagueness. I know what it is like 
when you are in the middle of a conference committee and trying to come 
up with legislation under all the pressures of time and the need to 
compromise and

[[Page S14114]]

to check with a bunch of different people. It is hard to do something 
that has 100 percent precision under those circumstances.
  Let me go through some of the respects in which I think the 
legislation is a little difficult to understand.
  As I said before, the statute lists certain model programs, and 
references them, such as the Florida labeling statute. It does not make 
clear, however, whether those programs are safe harbors--in other 
words, whether the people who are supposed to comply with this and who 
do it in a way that those programs operate, are safe from liability.
  As a matter of fact, the suggestion in the legislation is it is 
reasonably clear they are probably not safe because the legislation 
seems to require things that are not in some of these model programs. 
But if those models are not safe harbors, then what are they? What 
purpose do they really have? It is just not clear from the statute.
  The statute makes clear, it seems to me, that you can only call 
something American beef if that beef was born, raised, and processed in 
the United States. I think it is pretty clear that was one of the major 
purposes of the statute. But it does not say what the label ought to 
say, and it really addresses in no respect whatsoever what you should 
put on the label for beef that you do not want to claim was born, 
raised, and processed in the United States. It requires that foreign 
beef, within the meaning of the statute, be labeled, but it gives no 
clue whatsoever as to what that label ought to say--again, even given 
the fact that the statute does assign substantial liability if you get 
it wrong.
  So the intent is pretty clear, with regard to American beef, that it 
has to be born, raised, and processed in the United States if you want 
to call it American beef. It does not say exactly what that label 
should say and is very unclear and supplies really no guidance as to 
what the label should say if you do not want to call it American beef.

  The statute prohibits a mandatory tracing system in order to 
determine whether a label is correct. It says you cannot have a 
mandatory tracing system, but at the same time it requires that there 
be some kind of verification system. It certainly is not clear, I 
think, to anybody how we can have a mandatory verification system that 
does not include a mandatory tracing system. Now, I am not saying it is 
impossible; I am saying it is not clear.
  Again, there are very substantial liabilities for people who make the 
best guess they can from the statute and then get it wrong. The statute 
says the Department of Agriculture can enforce it at up to about 
$10,000, potentially, per violation. It does not say whether that is 
the exclusive means of enforcement.
  The statute is not clear whether there is some private cause of 
action, whether a class action in State or Federal court could be 
brought against a retailer that does have the burden of compliance that 
fails in some respect to comply with the statute.
  The statute does not say how this statute, the country-of-origin 
labeling law, relates to other labeling statutes. So it is not clear 
whether a violation of the country-of-origin labeling law is also a 
violation, for example, of the food safety laws or the other labeling 
laws or consumer protection laws or how that is going to relate to 
State consumer protection laws.
  I do not raise these issues as if this were some kind of a law school 
exam. I raise them because it is very important to understand this is a 
statute that people are going to have to follow regardless of what the 
regulations say, at least within limits.
  Let me go on to the next point because I think it is essential we 
make it in order to focus exactly on where we are now. We can concede, 
again, the good faith of both sides on this. We certainly can concede 
the good faith and intentions of the Senators who drafted this bill and 
the Congress that passed it.
  What we know is that the statute unquestionably does this. It imposes 
a labeling requirement with substantial liability for retailers, the 
last business organization to handle the food before consumers get it, 
if they violate that labeling requirement.
  What I want to suggest to the Senate is that what the regulations 
say, while, of course, it is important because it bears on how the 
statute might be interpreted, is a lot less important in determining 
how this is practically going to be construed and implemented than what 
the companies, the chief retailers in the country think, as their 
lawyers examine this law. How this law is implemented is going to 
depend on the advice the general counsel for Wal-Mart and Safeway and 
Giant give their executives as they consider how to implement this law.
  I have the documents. I have talked to people in this position. Given 
the vagueness in the law and the potential liability in the law, they 
are advising their clients to take the most conservative position 
possible in order to protect themselves against the worst case scenario 
for liability. They are not going to take a risk of some big class 
action lawsuit against them or some huge investigation by the 
Department of Agriculture with all the attendant negative publicity 
because they have taken a chance and interpreted this law as requiring 
less than perhaps it would require.
  This is why we are hearing back--all of us who have farm State 
constituents, and many who don't--from people in the production chain, 
in the distribution chain of food who are saying: This law is going to 
require us to do this and this and impose this cost and take that 
measure, not necessarily because of what was originally intended, but 
because the confusing aspects of the statute give rise to vagueness 
that creates the potential for liability that these companies are 
simply not going to risk. They are going to do what they have to do to 
protect themselves. Whatever it costs, they are going to do it and pass 
it down the production chain. That is my concern, that we end up, as a 
result of unintended vagueness in the law--I will concede to the 
Senate--passing these costs of production down where eventually they 
will settle on the weakest competitors in the food chain, which is, of 
course, the producers.
  So my cattlemen and yours may end up having to bear all these extra 
costs that are generated because of these concerns, and we end up 
hurting the very people, along with consumers, we are trying to help in 
passing this law.
  What are some of the things the retailers may do? We have been 
collecting a lot of information. I ask unanimous consent that this 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               IBP, Inc.

       Dear Producer: As you know, federal law requires that 
     country of origin labeling appear on all retail meats sold in 
     the U.S. by September 30, 2004. The labels must state where 
     the livestock was born, raised and slaughtered. USDA has 
     stated self-certification will not be allowed, nor will the 
     government step in to certify where livestock were born or 
     raised. Retailers have also stated they will require 
     verifiable records, and they do not plan to accept self-
     certification. Thus the responsibility for accurate 
     documentation of these required facts rests exclusively on 
     the livestock, meat and retail industries.
       IBP, Inc's (part of the Tyson Foods family) major retail 
     customers are already notifying us that we--and our 
     suppliers--must have the recordkeeping systems in place this 
     year to be able to comply with next year's mandate. Here is 
     what our retail customers want us to do:
       1. Sticker all covered commodities with country of origin 
     information that complies with the law and USDA regulations. 
     Provide enough signage to ensure one sign for each retail 
     display in every shipment of product that cannot bear a 
     label.
       2. Contract to maintain records and a verifiable audit 
     trail to establish the accuracy of the country of origin 
     information that retailers receive from packers for covered 
     commodities.
       3. Indemnify retailers for any fines or other costs they 
     incur as a result of the country of origin information that 
     packers provide or fail to provide.
       4. Segregate all covered commodities by country of origin 
     throughout the production chain until they are delivered to 
     the retailer, and maintain documentation verifying the 
     efficacy of the packer's segregation plan.
       5. Audits. Provide retailers with the results of an audit 
     conducted by USDA or another certified independent third 
     party to establish that packers have the systems in place to 
     ensure the accuracy of the country of origin information that 
     they provide retailers.
       In order to meet these customer requirements, it will be 
     necessary for you to provide IBP with verifiable information 
     on the place of birth and every location where livestock was 
     raised for each animal marketed. IBP,

[[Page S14115]]

     Inc. will require you, as our suppliers, to provide us 
     evidence of your recordkeeping program for gathering and 
     maintaining this information. Only you can document and 
     verify the born-in, raised-in components of the law. The 
     documentation costs--as well as the independent, third-party, 
     verification costs--will also be your responsibility. 
     Specifically, we will require you to:
       1. Provide third-party verified documentation of where the 
     livestock we purchase from you were born and raised.
       2. Provide a signed legal affidavit with each load of 
     livestock we purchase from you stating that there is a third-
     party verified audit trail in place that identifies where the 
     livestock in each load were born and raised.
       3. Provide IBP, Inc. access to your records so that we can 
     perform random producer audits as necessary to satisfy our 
     customers, verifying that an accurate audit trail is in place 
     and that it is being verified by an acceptable third party.
       4. Indemnify us for liability we incur that is a result of 
     producer noncompliance.
       For those of you raising market cattle or hogs you intend 
     to sell to a packer after September 30, 2004, you should 
     begin your documentation on all calves immediately and on all 
     hogs no later than November 2003.
       Many in the retail, meat and producer communities are 
     concerned about the costs, benefits, legal and logistical 
     challenges posed by this new law. As a result, there is a 
     united industry effort to either repeal mandatory country of 
     origin labeling for meat altogether or to convert it to a 
     permanent, voluntary program. Either way, we need the 
     producer community's help. If you share these concerns, we 
     urge you to contact your Senators or Member of Congress, as 
     well as your trade associations, and express your opinion.
       Furthermore, we urge you to share your thoughts with your 
     fellow producers and USDA by attending one of the USDA 
     ``listening sessions'' on this issue, expected to occur this 
     coming spring. USDA is charged with writing the regulations 
     for the final, mandatory country of origin labeling law, and 
     they need to hear from all affected parties. If you share our 
     concerns, we hope you will attend any meeting in your area 
     and speak out.
       We will attempt to contact you within the next few months 
     to learn about your proposed recordkeeping plans. In the 
     meantime, if you have questions, please feel free to contact 
     one of us and we will try to help you. If we are not 
     available, you may ask for Bob Hansen in Hog Procurement, 
     John Gerber in Cattle Procurement or John DeWitt in Cattle 
     Procurement.
           Sincerely,
     Bruce Bass,
       Senior Vice President, Cattle Procurement.
     Gary Machan,
       Vice President, Hog Procurement.

  Mr. TALENT. This is from IBP. They are packers. They are reporting 
what their major retail customers are notifying them that they have to 
do. Here is what the retail customers want us to do. I quote:

       Stick all covered commodities with country of origin 
     information that complies with the law and USDA regulations. 
     Provide enough signage to ensure one sign for each retail 
     display in every shipment of product that cannot bear a 
     label.
       Contract to maintain records and a verifiable audit trail 
     to establish the accuracy of the country of origin 
     information that retailers receive from packers for covered 
     commodities.

  I will not read the whole letter. But suffice it to say, the major 
retailers are going to reorganize their inventory and distribution 
lines so they can keep separate these different kinds of beef. That is 
going to generate cost. They are going to require that as much beef as 
possible be prepackaged. This is interesting. It may result, 
unfortunately, in their laying off some meat cutters and people on the 
premises of the store who have been cutting meat fresh there. They are 
going to get it prepackaged because then they have to do as little as 
possible at the store. That may tend to encourage vertical integration 
in the production chain, which is the opposite of what we want.
  They are going to set up an audit system and require packers to have 
software and other kinds of records that will network into the 
retailers systems so they can trace back. And with every piece of meat 
they have in the counter, they are going to want to be able to trace 
that back to a particular cow so they can protect themselves in the 
event they are audited.
  Then, of course, this will domino down the line of production. The 
packers are going to have to have this software. They are going to 
reorganize some of their warehousing and inventory facilities. The 
auction barns and feedlots are going to have to have software which is 
compliant with this whole system. I visited auction barns, and they 
showed me how they are going to have to change where the cows are. They 
are going to tell the producers that they are going to have to be able 
to be compliant and network into their systems of verification and 
tracing when they bring cows to the auction barns to sell.
  I don't think we intended any of this. As I read the statute, I can't 
even stand here and tell you that the statute suggests that is 
absolutely the intention. But that is a possible, plausible 
interpretation of it. Even if the regulation said something entirely 
different, I don't think it would make any difference.
  The statute is what imposes the liability. The statute is supreme 
over the regulation. And the lawyers for these various retailers who 
are interpreting this are going to look first and foremost at the 
statute. They are going to act in a manner that protects their clients 
from the downside risk of substantial liability that arises because of 
certain unintended but, I think, nevertheless very real vagaries and 
vagueness in the law.
  What are we left with? We can allow this process to play itself out, 
basically not do anything as the effective date of the act approaches, 
which is October of next year. It is already having an impact because 
people are raising cattle right now that they are going to sell after 
October of next year and that they are going to have to be able to 
trace back. That is the reason we are beginning to hear the lead edges 
of the concerns about this because they don't know what they are 
supposed to do to comply with the law. They are concerned they may have 
to do all these things I have talked about.

  We can allow it to play itself out, kind of like a tragic play that 
you watch and just hope for a surprise good ending, and maybe we will 
get one. Maybe all this will sort itself out.
  We can repeal the law and replace it with something that is 
voluntary. I know that is what a lot of people want to do. That is 
probably what a lot of people in the House want to do. I am going to 
say in candor to the Senate that my evaluation of the risk here is such 
that I would prefer at this stage, if the only two choices are no 
mandatory law or the law we have now with the downside risks we have 
now, I would rather have no mandatory law.
  But there is a third alternative. We can fix the law. We don't have 
to end it. We can mend it. We can go in and in the same good faith in 
which this law was passed and the same good faith in which Senators 
have spoken on the floor today, and look at the areas that have given 
rise to uncertainty within the retailing community and the whole rest 
of the chain of production of this food, all the way down to the 
producers we are trying to help, and we can say: We can make our 
intention clear; we can give you the level of certainty you need to be 
able to implement this law and comply with this law in the manner that 
we all are saying now we originally intended.
  The law we passed in the farm bill doesn't have to be our final 
statement on the matter. We don't have to be getting into these kinds 
of arguments. That is a third alternative in which I would be very 
happy to participate.
  I will say, I don't intend to support this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution--not because I don't understand the frustration that has led 
up to it; not because I necessarily disagree with what I have heard on 
the Senate floor about the motives that may have been working in the 
House; not because I am against, personally, a mandatory country-of-
origin labeling law; not because, as the Senator from Nevada said, I am 
against what he was saying about consumers knowing where their food 
comes from. Maybe there is a good niche market available. Maybe if we 
can do this in a way that works, consumers will look at this and they 
will want to buy that American beef and it will help our producers. 
That would be great.
  But it does seem to me now that nobody is really satisfied with these 
regulations. Some people believe the regulations are an accurate 
reflection of the law, and they are not satisfied with the law. But 
they don't like the fact that the regulations are the way they are.
  Then there are people who think the regulations are not an accurate 
reflection of the law, and they don't like the regulations the way they 
are. So it does seem to me that maybe the House

[[Page S14116]]

has done the right thing--albeit, perhaps, for the wrong reason--in 
saying: Let's not implement the regulations.
  I will say, if the House feels that not implementing the regulations 
means the law isn't going to go into effect, they need to consult some 
different lawyers. That law reads that the effective date is in October 
of next year. Whether there are regulations or not, that liability is 
going into effect then. If we have a level of discomfort, as I do at 
this stage, with how the statute reads, we better do something about it 
in time so the people we are trying to help will enjoy the benefits of 
the law we passed 2 years ago.
  Mr. President, it has been an experience for me to investigate and 
oversee this implementation. At this point I will say I stand ready to 
work with anybody on either side in trying to make certain we get a 
result that is at least acceptable and, I hope, is good for our 
producers. In my discussions with Senators, I have come to have a great 
deal of respect for their sincerity and passion on this issue. I don't 
see, given that, why we cannot come up with something that will work 
better for everybody than what we have now.
  With that, I will yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. TALENT. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. In fairness, I have supported this policy. When I return 
home and meet with people in grocery store chains that serve his State 
and mine, they have raised some legitimate questions, as far as I am 
concerned, about how much is required. It seems to me to be not a great 
burden to ask them to put some notice, for example, that the bananas 
are from Costa Rica or from some other country. Most of their concerns 
seem to be directed toward meat and whether or not they can 
legitimately trace the meat, and through all the requirements of the 
legislation and how much time is involved. I come to this issue 
realizing that whenever regulation is proposed, it is usually the first 
defense of the opponents to say it is going to cost 10 times as much as 
you would imagine to implement it.
  I ask the Senator from Missouri--and this is an honest question, and 
I have no predisposition on his position on this issue--can he say, as 
he is standing there in opposition to this, that the cost estimates 
coming out are reasonable, in light of what is being asked of these 
grocery chains?
  Mr. TALENT. I appreciate the Senator's question. I am happy to answer 
him in complete candor. I have not had the capacity in my subcommittee 
and in my office to be able to quantify what the costs are. I do know 
that actors in the chain of production, who I don't think have a big ax 
to grind--I am not talking about the packers here--have told me they 
are very concerned with what they are going to have to do to comply 
with this. It is chiefly the retailers, but not just them; also auction 
barns, and I have had producer organizations come; and I think their 
sense is that the thing that we are basically intending--as the Senator 
is saying, let consumers know where the beef comes from--is something 
we probably could handle at an affordable level.
  But there is enough uncertainty in this, which they are not willing 
to risk, and the Senator can understand that they don't want to face--
or be the ones at risk of facing a huge liability if they get it wrong. 
So it is reasonable to believe that the potential cost of this is very 
substantial. I can say that to the Senator. I cannot say it is $2 
billion or half a billion. I just cannot tell the Senator that.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to raise another issue. Really, I didn't 
think about it until August. I heard from two different grocery 
chains--one based in Chicago and one in St. Louis--about this 
legislation, and it goes as follows: If you establish a burden on a 
grocery store or a chain to follow these regulations, it necessarily 
involves manpower. People will have to keep records and label products, 
and all of that is part of it.

  How much? As the Senator said, and I agree, I cannot quantify it. I 
don't know how much that is. The point made to me is that the Wal-Marts 
of the world, which pay rock-bottom wages, with no health benefits, 
will be able to come up with the manpower at a much lower cost than 
some of the major grocery store chains, some of which are union-
organized, that pay a living wage and health benefits. They say to us, 
you are once again giving a competitive advantage to the Wal-Marts of 
the world that pay these low wages, with no benefits, to the 
disadvantage of grocery store companies who are trying to be good 
neighbors and good corporate citizens and provide decent wages and 
benefits.
  Has the Senator heard this observation?
  Mr. TALENT. I have. I have heard a number of things from retailers. 
One chain told me they are probably going to have to end up laying off 
many meatcutters because more of it will be prepackaged. I mentioned 
that in my remarks. I have retailers telling me they are going to 
advertise less for beef.
  One fellow said: I don't want a lot of beef if I have this potential 
liability. I will simply advertise more for chicken. It will hurt the 
smaller stores in the more rural areas, and the bigger unionized stores 
to some extent. In fairness to the Senators who supported this, and in 
good faith still support it, I want to say a lot depends on how exactly 
these companies interpret the law and what risk level they are willing 
to go to.
  My concern as a lawyer--and I think the Senator would probably 
agree--is that their general counselors are going to say: We are not 
going to take a chance. Tell everybody all up and down the production 
chain, this is what we want from them, and they are going to have to 
bear the cost.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. TALENT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from South Dakota 
is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am a bit confounded. I have to admit 
that some of the great concerns expressed about country-of-origin 
labeling for meat are being raised at a time when USDA has not yet 
issued a final statement about what the regulations are even going to 
be.
  The USDA has considerable discretion, based on the legislation that 
passed this body and is now part of the farm bill. So a lot of this 
frenzy going on is about final regulations that are not yet in place.
  Let me add that we are soon going to see Senator Daschle offer an 
amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, relative to country-of-
origin labeling that the Senate conferees sought to stay with the 
Senate approach and reject the House approach to delay implementation. 
That effort on the part of Senator Daschle, joined by our Republican 
colleague, Senator Enzi of Wyoming, and myself, is supported by some 
135 agricultural organizations, as Senator Reid has noted, including, I 
say to my friend and colleague from Missouri, Missouri Farmers Union, 
Missouri National Farmers Organization, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, 
and the Missouri Stockgrowers Association, not to mention the American 
Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union.
  So from the left to the right, across the entire spectrum of 
agricultural and rural organizations, there is overwhelming support 
transcending party-line differences in support of this amendment that 
is going to be offered by Senator Daschle.
  The amendment directs the Senate conferees to insist that the final 
Agriculture appropriations bill should not restrict or delay the 
implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat.
  Mr. President, there are interests in this country that have 
convinced the House to include language in its version of this year's 
Agriculture appropriations bill to interfere with the USDA rulemaking 
process by delaying for up to 1 full year implementation of country-of-
origin labeling for meat and meat products only. The law in the current 
farm bill provides for country-of-origin labeling for fruit, 
vegetables, and for meat. But it is only meat that has been singled out 
for this delay, keeping in mind, of course, that the farm bill already 
provided for 2 years of delay in the implementation of a mandatory 
program as it is.

  This interruption is simply not justified, and it serves to placate 
only those special interests who profit from the status quo by, 
frankly, camouflaging foreign meat products.
  I understand there are certain interests that have foreign meat that 
comes

[[Page S14117]]

into the country, and this is not a trade barrier. We are suggesting 
there be no trade barrier. If people want to eat Argentine beef or 
Mexican meat, they are certainly entitled to make that choice, but it 
ought to be a knowing choice. That is all we are suggesting, that 
people get to know the origin of their shoes, shirts, and auto parts.
  Why should the United States be among the last of the industrialized 
democracies in the world to allow our consumers to know the origin of 
the meat products they feed their families? It is a very simple 
question. It would strike most people as common sense that in this day 
and age, people ought to have the opportunity to know the origin of the 
products they are buying, especially products they are feeding their 
families.
  The farm bill already included a very lengthy 2-year implementation 
process for country-of-origin labeling, and USDA is now just half way 
through the rulemaking procedure. To prematurely disconnect country-of-
origin labeling for meat from this process is unfair and will harm U.S. 
livestock producers and American consumers alike who stand to benefit 
from a country-of-origin labeling program.
  We need to allow USDA to continue with the process of allowing the 
public, both those opposed and those supportive of country-of-origin 
labeling, to interact with USDA in their responsibility to implement 
this law for the fall of 2004.
  There has been submitted for the Record a letter signed by 135 farm, 
ranch, and consumer organizations supportive of our bipartisan sense-
of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. President, these organizations represent more than 50 million 
Americans. Additionally, the most important and influential farm and 
consumer groups in the Nation support country-of-origin labeling, 
including the National Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, and the 
Consumer Federation of America. I think it can be fairly said this is 
as much, even more so, a consumer issue as it is a livestock producer 
issue.
  It is now the job of the Senate to stand up for the majority of U.S. 
citizens and fix what special interests have convinced the House to do. 
A delay in implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat is a 
seriously misguided effort because country-of-origin labeling is the 
only method we have now to differentiate and identify meat that comes 
from our country as opposed to meat that comes from other countries; 
for instance, meat that may come from a BSE-infected, mad-cow-infected 
country. We don't claim country-of-origin labeling is, per se, a food 
safety issue, but it certainly is a consumer confidence issue at a time 
when meat may very soon be coming into the United States from Canada, a 
country where BSE was recently identified. Now USDA is talking about 
allowing these younger cattle to come into the country from Canada, 
while at the same time our Japanese friends are telling us that BSE is, 
indeed, possible in these younger livestock.
  If we are going to preserve confidence in the high quality product 
United States livestock producers have available, have created for the 
American consumer, then consumers need to be able to make a knowing 
choice. You can argue for them, these are decisions other people can 
make for you, that you ought to simply take on blind faith the food 
inspection and safety of the meat that is served in America, that is 
sold in America. Why shouldn't the United States be among the few 
industrialized democracies in the world that says: No, we will not 
allow you to make that choice; this is information you don't need, and 
we'll decide for you that you don't need this information?
  Last week, USDA announced a plan to open the U.S. border to imports 
of Canadian live cattle, a plan that could be implemented in the first 
quarter of the 2004 calendar year. I am disappointed USDA appears more 
serious to opening our border to Canadian cattle than they are to 
implementing country-of-origin labeling. If they open floodgates to 
nearly 1 million head of Canadian cattle early in 2004, and if Congress 
simultaneously postpones the implementation of country-of-origin 
labeling for meat, the American consumers will have no way to determine 
whether they are buying Canadian or U.S. beef.
  Again, if their choice is to buy Canadian beef, they certainly have 
the legal right to do so, but they ought to have an opportunity to 
know. They ought to have an opportunity to make that choice, and it 
ought to be a knowing choice. That is what makes the market forces in 
America work so well; the sales are transparent. People get to know the 
quality and origins and the value of the products they buy, and they 
let the best product win.
  To camouflage origins of meat is contrary to those free market 
decisionmaking processes. It is no secret, country-of-origin delay, 
matched with the deluge of Canadian cattle imports, recklessly places 
consumer confidence at risk and could lead to serious economic harm for 
United States cattle ranchers.
  Furthermore, postponing implementation of country-of-origin labeling 
for meat neglects demands of our most important and valuable export 
markets. Japan and South Korea have written to the Department of 
Agriculture seeking our assurances to provide country-of-origin 
labeling for all U.S. beef exports to those countries because those 
countries do not want Canadian beef to be commingled with our exports.
  The same day USDA announced their plan to allow Canadian cattle into 
the U.S., it was reiterated by Japan that the U.S. ought to guarantee 
no beef from Canadian-born cattle is exported to Japan. The only method 
to certify origin of beef exports to Japan and our other important 
trade partners is to implement country-of-origin labeling.
  A delay of country-of-origin labeling seriously jeopardizes our most 
important exports of beef, which will certainly lead to economic injury 
to America's cattle men and women.
  We face a simultaneous problem: One, that our own consumers are being 
denied the information they need to have confidence, to make knowing 
choices about the meat they serve their families and, at the same time, 
we are putting in great jeopardy the export market.
  Japan is the largest buyer of American beef in the world, and they 
are saying: Look, we don't want to buy your beef if you can't certify 
to us this is, in fact, American beef you are selling us, We can't do 
that right now because we don't have a country-of-origin system in 
place. So we find ourselves not only doing a disservice to American 
consumers and American families, but we also are setting ourselves up 
in a circumstance where we can take a catastrophic hit to our export 
markets at the same time.
  Eighty-four percent of our major trade partners already have country-
of-origin labeling for food products, including meat--84 percent. That 
means 48 of our 57 major trade partners already have country-of-origin 
labeling. Clearly this is not rocket science. It does not have to be 
costly. In fact, in the United States, we already have country-of-
origin labeling in some niche areas. It is required that meat that goes 
into the School Lunch Program be American meat. It is self-certified. 
It seems to work. We have a Black Angus Program, and we have other 
programs that already work. They are not costly. It is not that 
expensive.
  This notion that somehow country-of-origin labeling has to be some 
immensely expensive and complicated process is foolishness. If all we 
did was keep track of the meat that comes into the United States, that 
alone would be enough to be able to certify everything else is American 
without requiring anything in particular of American livestock 
producers.
  Well, the packers and retailers would like us to think that country-
of-origin labeling is some enormously expensive and burdensome program, 
and they have been working very hard at trying to frighten both 
producers and consumers to think just that. There have been letters 
that have gone out and there has been a lot of scare talk that has been 
going on, and there is no doubt they enjoy taking the profits of 
mingling foreign meat with U.S. meat, selling it all off as a premium 
product, without allowing consumers to make a knowing choice. I 
appreciate there are those from certain parts of the United States who 
enjoy the benefit of bringing in Mexican feeder calves, fattening them 
and then selling them as an American product. They are able to

[[Page S14118]]

profit at a higher level than they would otherwise by not allowing 
American consumers to know what in fact it is they are buying.
  We are not suggesting one cannot bring in feeder calves from anywhere 
one wants, one cannot bring in meat from anywhere one wants. We are 
suggesting consumers ought to know the difference.
  Nearly a year ago, USDA said country-of-origin labeling would cost $2 
billion. Then Senator Daschle and I asked the Government Accounting 
Office, the GAO, to assess whether USDA's cost was accurate. GAO said 
the Department of Agriculture's initial recordkeeping cost was 
``questionable and not well supported.''
  Now USDA has reduced their recordkeeping cost estimate by $1.5 
billion of that $2 billion. Furthermore, country-of-origin labeling is 
not going to result in a mountain of red tape as some of the critics 
suggest. In fact, USDA's proposed rule states most livestock producers 
already maintain the types of records--birth, health, and so on--that 
would be relied upon to verify the origin of animals under country-of-
origin labeling. People simply need to do what they are already doing.
  Even if individuals have questions or concerns about country-of-
origin labeling, the best way to ensure those questions and concerns 
are addressed is to allow USDA to continue forward with its very 
lengthy rulemaking process. It is through this process only that all 
parties can submit questions and develop alternatives to ensure 
implementation of country-of-origin labeling does not lead to red tape 
and overwhelming costs. We can move away from some of the scare talk 
and from some of the reckless rhetoric and in fact allow USDA to 
evaluate whatever issues are raised in a thoughtful, deliberative 
fashion, as they have the opportunity currently to do.
  Every stakeholder group has 60 days to submit written comments to 
USDA with respect to their proposed rule to implement country-of-origin 
labeling. Then USDA will incorporate those comments into the final 
rule, which is not even going to be written until well into the year 
2004.
  USDA's proposed rule is far from perfect--I would be the first to say 
that--but compared to what it looked like nearly a year ago, USDA has 
been making improvements and has been making progress. With balanced 
public input and assurance that the implementation process will not be 
interrupted, maybe then those with questions and concerns can work with 
USDA in the coming year to help make the law and address the concerns 
they raise.
  I commend Senator Daschle, Senator Enzi, and others in a bipartisan 
spirit, who have offered support for this amendment. I encourage my 
colleagues to support it. All this simply does is to say a law which is 
already law, which has been signed by the President, is part of the 
farm bill, is in the midst of the rulemaking process now, be allowed to 
go forward. Allow USDA to take the comments from the public, allow USDA 
to evaluate all of that, perhaps make still further changes on their 
way to a final regulation, and then we will see where we are.

  To stop the process midway through the regulation listening process 
cannot possibly serve the American public, the American consumers, the 
American agricultural economy well.
  Again, I thank Senator Daschle for his extraordinary leadership on 
this issue, and what he is trying to do to bring some sense to our 
deliberations on this Agriculture appropriations bill and to send some 
direction to the conferees to not prematurely pull the plug on the 
rulemaking process USDA is in the midst of now.
  I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment Senator Daschle is shortly going to formally introduce.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, 
     Mr. Enzi, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley, 
     Mr. Burns, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, 
     and Mr. Kerry proposes an amendment numbered 2078.

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

   (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding country of 
                     origin labeling requirements)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the conferees on the 
     part of the Senate on this bill shall insist that no limits 
     on the use of funds to enforce country of origin labeling 
     requirements for meat or meat products be included in the 
     conference report accompanying the bill.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I might find my 
way into the order so I might also offer an amendment. I see the 
Senator from Wyoming, who I expect is wanting to speak, and because we 
will probably go back and forth, I wonder if I might get unanimous 
consent to be recognized following the presentation from the Senator 
from Wyoming. I know the Senator from South Dakota has now offered an 
amendment. My expectation would be the Senator from Wyoming will speak 
next, but might I receive consent to be recognized following the 
presentation from the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to begin by complimenting the 
distinguished Senator from South Dakota for his remarkable statement. I 
am not sure anything is left to be said. I think he covered it so well 
and so eloquently.
  He, as I think all of our colleagues recall, is the true author, the 
founder, the initiator of this issue during our deliberation on the 
farm bill itself. It is with great wisdom he spoke today and I think 
with great persuasion. We ought to listen to the Senator from South 
Dakota. Again, I thank him for all he has done to get us to this point 
and the efforts he has made to ensure we understand the consequences of 
our actions today.
  Let me also thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, 
for all of his work and help in making this amendment a bipartisan 
effort, to ensure that we, as colleagues interested in agriculture, a 
strong economy, and rural America, do the right thing with regard to 
this particular question involving better information and better choice 
for all consumers and an effort to help producers as well.
  There are others also who have played a very significant role; my 
colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan; Senator Grassley, who gave 
a passionate speech earlier today on this amendment, Senator Burns, 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Baucus, Senator Conrad, Senator Harkin, 
Senator Thomas; a number of Senators have expressed themselves and have 
been the driving force from the very beginning as we have urged careful 
thought about how the Congress ought to proceed with regard to this 
question.
  The Senator from South Dakota made several important points, but if 
there is one that is most important it is simply we are now in a very 
delicate, deliberate rulemaking stage. What our colleagues in the House 
have chosen to do is to say, we want that stage to end; we want to 
terminate rulemaking before we even see what the rule is; we want to 
make a decision about the decision prior to the time the decision has 
even been made.
  For us through legislation to interject our own voice, without 
allowing the Department of Agriculture to respond, as they are required 
to do in the farm bill itself, passed last year, I think is terrible 
policy but also premature.
  What we said in the farm bill, and what my colleague from South 
Dakota

[[Page S14119]]

said so well this afternoon, is we ought to bring agriculture, consumer 
protection, and information into the modern era. As he noted, 48 other 
countries, 84 percent of our trading partners, already do that. They 
have already recognized the importance of good consumer information.
  I find it ironic we can tell people where bananas come from, where 
lettuce comes from, where our clothing comes from, where just about 
everything else comes from, but we have those who say it is impossible 
for us to tell people from where our meat comes. When it comes to meat, 
we can tell people whether it is choice or whether it is prime, but we 
just cannot tell people from where it is imported. I do not think 
anybody can accept that logic.
  If we can decide the difference between choice and prime, we can 
decide the difference between Mexico and the United States. That is all 
we are talking about, a recognition that consumers have just as much 
right to know where their meat comes from as they have a right to know 
how good the quality. When we passed the legislation, frankly on a 
overwhelming bipartisan basis, we said yes; we said the consumers ought 
to have that right.
  That is what we are trying to do today: First, to allow the 
rulemaking process to go forward. But, second, to come down to a pretty 
fundamental question. It is pretty fundamental. Should consumers have 
the right to know? I believe the answer to that question is yes. I 
believe it is in keeping with a long tradition of legislation passed in 
this body, in both Republican and Democratic majorities.
  I recall 13 years ago, so vividly, Congress passing legislation back 
then that we were told was impossible to enforce, impossible to 
administer. It was legislation that required nutrition labeling. Howard 
Metzenbaum, that Senator from Ohio who was a passionate advocate for 
consumers in so many ways, was the author of that legislation. I can 
recall at the time opponents of his bill said: We are going to see 
costs soar just as soon as this legislation is implemented; it is 
impractical to talk about how many calories, or what the nutrition 
balance is going to be, with every single product in the market. But 
Congress passed it anyway and, in fact, now the labeling law has become 
what is widely described as the most successful consumer information 
tool in all of history and now we consider it almost daily as a matter 
of course as we look at the labels when we buy the products, the 
packages.
  There are those, in packing in particular, who have attempted to say 
for a lot of reasons that this legislation could carry that same 
ominous effect on the market once more. Four meatpackers control 80 
percent of the meat market. They operate multibillion-dollar empires. 
We know how powerful they are and we know when they speak there are a 
lot of people who listen. But I believe we ought to go beyond what 
special interest concerns there are. We ought to have a right to know. 
When there is mad cow disease, as we have seen in Canada, if we are 
going to import meat from Canada, we ought to know those circumstances 
exist. And before we buy, if we have a choice between American beef and 
imported beef, whether it is Canada or Mexico or anyplace else, 
consumers ought to know. Consumers ought to have the right to make that 
choice for themselves.
  I believe this may be one of the single most important consumer bills 
that our Congress is going to take up in this session of this Congress. 
We are told by the packers especially that this is too expensive, that 
we simply can't afford to implement the plan. Estimates rose as high as 
$2 billion. In fact, even USDA expressed real concern about the cost, 
advocating a review of the costs.
  We did just that. We asked the General Accounting Office, as my 
colleague from South Dakota said, to look at the facts. Forget all the 
assertions; forget all the hyperbole. Let's really look at what the 
cost will be. They did that. They reported back not long ago and they 
said the cost is not $2 billion; it isn't even half of the $2 billion 
that was originally alleged to be the cost of the implementation of 
this rule. In fact they said the cost in the first year would be less 
than $600 million--about $582 million. I believe the USDA cost 
estimates are still too high because they don't take into account the 
extraordinary economic benefits that could be derived with this 
information.

  Studies have shown that if we have this kind of information the 
actual sales of U.S. meat could increase anywhere from 1 percent to 5 
percent, and that isn't taking into account bringing down the per-
product cost. So, clearly, it is a fraction of the cost that was 
originally attributed to this rule.
  The second problem we have with regard to the rule and the effort to 
thwart the rule is the packers are simply requiring too much paperwork 
and recordkeeping from the rule itself. We have to fix that. We have to 
ensure that we make this a practical application. I believe we can do 
that as well. I believe we can create the kind of opportunity for 
practical application of common sense just as we have shown in so many 
other instances--as we have shown with meat labeling, as we have shown 
with grading, as we have shown with consumer information provided 
routinely now throughout the marketplace.
  I believe what we ought to do, in short, is give USDA the authority 
and the opportunity to work their will, to do what we hired them to do, 
to give us the rule, to allow us to analyze it. If we have problems at 
some point down the road, we can change it. We can ask the 
administration to work with us to come up with something better. But at 
least let's give them that opportunity to produce what they are 
required to produce under law.
  I believe that is the right course of action. That is what this 
amendment says. It simply says, with a bipartisan voice, that we 
believe we are on the right track. We believe producers would benefit 
if consumers knew they could buy products made, produced, and marketed 
in this country. That is what the amendment says, and I urge its 
adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to join the chorus of support for 
this amendment and to thank Senator Daschle for all his efforts on its 
behalf. Since I got to the Senate, Senator Daschle and I have been 
working on something I call the packer concentration. It is big 
business in this country that takes on the small producers of this 
country and beats them to a pulp.
  When I first got here, I was a little leery about whether that 
happened. I am now firmly convinced and know it happens because of the 
way the lobbyists come in and grind on any of these bills we pass.
  We did pass in the Senate country-of-origin labeling. It is part of 
the law right now. The USDA is supposed to be working toward putting 
that into place. But the packer concentration has worked on their 
friends in the USDA and said we have to make this so tough that nobody 
will want to do it. It will run up the costs so much that nobody will 
want to pay for it. That is kind of the status we were in for a while.
  We have been making a little progress on it as it got closer to 
having a rule published. Now we have the chance to send the 
instructions, it is a sense of the Senate, to send the instructions to 
the conference committee to say that what we did before ought to move 
on. We are not changing the law. We are suggesting that it ought to 
continue so we can get a clearer definition of what is really happening 
so we can make sure that country-of-origin labeling happens for our 
producers and our consumers and to make sure it does not run up high 
costs.
  At present, the Senate bill on appropriations is silent on country-
of-origin labeling, effectively allowing it to be implemented as the 
law intended by September 2004.
  The position of the House on this issue is much different, however. 
The House has stripped funding for the implementation of country-of-
origin labeling for meat and meat products in their version of this 
legislation. The action of the House cannot go unchallenged by the 
Senate, which is why Senators Daschle and Thomas and Johnson and I are 
introducing this amendment today.
  I have discussed this matter with my colleagues and it has become 
clear that there is need for education regarding country-of-origin 
labeling. Many of them were not here for the farm bill debate. For 
those who were, the issue

[[Page S14120]]

of country-of-origin labeling may not be familiar because it was not 
debated on the Senate floor. Country-of-origin labeling was included in 
the bill by way of an Agriculture Committee vote, and the final details 
of the law were worked out during a conference with the House.
  Country of origin labeling is relevant for agricultural producers and 
consumers alike. In fact, the country of origin labeling law is based 
on the Consumer Right-to-Know Act of 2001, which I cosponsored. The law 
requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to put in place a system 
for U.S. retailers to inform their customers when they buy beef, lamb, 
pork or other perishable agricultural commodities as to what country 
that product originated.
  Food labeling can help increase consumer confidence by assuring 
consumers they are making informed and knowledgeable decisions about 
the products they buy. Consumers should know if the meat they are 
bringing home to feed their families has been produced here, or if it 
was imported from a country that may have fewer environmental, health 
and safety regulations on livestock production. The Consumer Federation 
of America and the National Consumers League advocate country of origin 
labeling and demonstrate consumer support for the program.
  Producers support country of origin labeling too. On October 9, 132 
producer and consumer groups from across the nation sent a letter to 
Senators indicating their support for country of origin labeling 
funding and my amendment. The letter was signed by groups such as the 
National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the 
National Association of Counties, and the Wyoming Stockgrowers 
Association. They know that country of origin labeling will be a shot 
in the arm for agricultural producers because it will add value to 
American-grown food.
  In the case of meat, the law intends for retailers to designate a 
product as having a U.S. country of origin only if the meat is from an 
animal that was born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. For 
beef alone, a recent study by the University of Florida indicated that 
a consumer's willingness to pay additional money for labeled beef is 
estimated to be worth $3.5 billion.
  That is $3.5 billion of additional sales. Right now a lot of people 
think that a USDA stamp means the beef was grown in the United States--
not true. Opponents claim that today's beef prices are higher than they 
have been in recent memory. True. They claim the country-of-origin 
labeling is unnecessary. Wrong. I hate to break it to them, but prices 
are high because the Canadian border is closed. Packers have been 
forced to rely more heavily on U.S. products. Without country-of-origin 
labeling, the packers will switch to the flood of Canadian beef that 
will pass through our border as soon as it opens. If country-of-origin 
labeling is implemented, consumers will know if packers have chosen to 
pass up U.S. beef for Canadian beef.
  Opponents refuse to recognize the benefits country-of-origin labeling 
has for both producers and consumers. That is how we have reached our 
current position and seen funding for the implementation of country-of-
origin labeling stripped from the House bill.
  Those who perpetrated this action in the House claim that they need 
more time to consider the ramifications of country-of-origin labeling. 
Time is one thing that the debate surrounding country-of-origin 
labeling has had. This issue was debated in the years before its 
inclusion in the farm bill. Since the law was passed, 2 years were 
granted for rulemaking to ensure its thorough implementation. During 
that time, opponents of country-of-origin labeling have waged a 
campaign to frighten and bully those who stand to benefit from its 
proper implementation. Livestock producers have been told that they 
will be saddled with tremendous burdens that aren't even mandated by 
the law.
  The move to strip funding in the House bill did not arise as a noble 
gesture to protect producers by giving more time and thought to 
implementation, it is a covert attempt to gut and rescind country of 
origin labeling. Removing funding for implementation did not improve 
the process, it stopped the process cold. For those who have genuine 
concerns regarding the implementation of country of origin labeling, 
the answer is not to put off implementing the law, but to implement it 
properly.
  Our conferees should not accept the House position. Instead, we 
should continue to fund the program. As we continue to receive genuine 
concerns, we should fund implementation and allow those concerns to be 
brought to the USDA where they will be addressed. We have a process for 
stopping the whole thing if it is not addressed. This is the legitimate 
way to solve problems, as opposed to avoiding them. In fact, this 
approach has already been successful.
  On Monday, the USDA released their proposed rule for the mandatory 
country-of-origin label program. The process is working. The rule is 
not what it should be. It is time for people of this country to comment 
on that rule. I am sure you will hear comments about how difficult the 
rule is. But that is why we have a rulemaking process--so people can 
give their input. Then we can see if the Department of Agriculture 
follows that input. If they don't, we, in oversight, can stop the 
process. We shouldn't stop the process before it gets started. The 
process is working.
  Since coming out with the voluntary rule, the USDA has responded to 
the concerns of industry and produced a better product than they were 
talking about originally. It is important to keep the regulations 
simple for producers and retailers. In the case of livestock producers, 
they do not even produce a product that is covered by the law.
  Muscle cuts and ground meat products are covered but live animals are 
not. In addition, regulations should be simple for the retailer because 
they are the only recipient of information from the supplier. They 
don't produce the information.
  The proposed rule addresses some of the liability concerns raised by 
retailers by clarifying that retailers will not be liable for the 
accuracy of information provided to them by suppliers. That is where 
they get their meat. In addition, rather than requiring stores to 
maintain the records they used to establish country of origin for 2 
years, local grocery stores only have to maintain those records for 7 
days after the product's sale. There are still areas of concern that 
need to be addressed, but the 60 day comment period before the final 
rule gives everyone an opportunity to improve it. That is what we ought 
to be doing.
  The USDA included a cost benefit analysis in the proposed rule. 
Within that analysis is a breakdown their expected impacts to specific 
portions of the production chain. I was encouraged to see that the 
relative impact for producers was minimal. Even the USDA acknowledged 
that the cost for producers will be modest and primarily for 
recordkeeping. The USDA estimates that the cost per producer will be 
between $180 and $443. Unfortunately, the information is meaningless 
because it is based on an average per producer. Producers range largely 
in the size of their operations. The information that will assist 
producers understand the potential impact of the rule is the cost per 
product, or per head in my State. It is clear that the cost would be 
lower than $180 for someone with only a few head of cattle. The USDA 
did indicate that the rule should not have a disproportionate or larger 
impact on smaller producers.
  I was pleased to see that the USDA had shifted down from their 
original $2 billion estimate for record keeping costs to $582 million. 
Although still high, this shift agrees with what I have been saying all 
along. The USDA's original cost estimate for record keeping was 
inflated and unsupported. The outrageous cost was based on an 
assumption that the an hour of recordkeeping for the producer was worth 
$25. My producers would love to have that cost for their recordkeeping 
time. It also assumed that an hour spent by retailers on recordkeeping 
was worth $50. Again, retailers would like to get $50 on that. I am 
sure that some ranchers and grocery store owners in Wyoming would love 
to be paid what the USDA thought 1 hour of recordkeeping was worth. In 
their proposed rule, the USDA admits that these are unsupported numbers 
and significantly scaled down the total recordkeeping costs. I think 
they will be scaled down considerably.

[[Page S14121]]

  However, the USDA indicates that the total cost for implementation 
could range from $582 million to $3.9 billion. I am concerned with the 
$3.3 billion gap in these numbers. I think that takes away from the 
credibility. This is a proposed rule and the ultimate cost will depend 
entirely on its implementation. If the USDA takes comments of industry 
and producer into account, the implementation costs will be on the 
lower end of the estimate, or lower than the estimate, just like the 
case of the recordkeeping costs.

  Finally, the USDA reports a potential for staggering costs but fails 
to recognize the benefits and potential for increased sales in their 
analysis. As I said earlier, a study has indicated that labeling beef 
as to its country of origin will increase consumer eagerness to pay for 
a product they prefer by a total of as much as $3.5 billion. The USDA 
did not accept this and other studies on the benefits of country-of-
origin labeling and they did not conduct their own benefit analysis. 
They were unable to quantify the benefit using their own information so 
they did not include any benefit in their study. However, failure to 
study something does not mean it does not exist.
  Even allowing for no benefit, the USDA stated a 1 to 5 percent 
increase in consumer demand would offset the costs to the economy of 
country-of-origin labeling. That is a powerful statement. Even a 
minimal increase in market share will cover the cost of the program.
  Again, the key to the success of this program is how it is 
implemented. We are at the stage of the rules being published, the 60 
days of comment. We still have a chance to make a difference on the 
rules and bring the costs down and simplify them for the producer and 
retailer. It is for this reason my colleagues and I are proposing the 
amendment today.
  The Senate supports country-of-origin labeling. For those Senators 
who have concern with country-of-origin labeling, defunding the program 
is not an effective way to deal with those concerns. Our amendment 
states it is the sense of the Senate that conferees on the part of the 
Senate on this bill shall insist that no limits on the use of funds to 
enforce country-of-origin labeling for meat or meat products be 
included in the conference report. If my colleagues support country-of-
origin labeling, they should vote for this amendment. If some of my 
colleagues have concerns about the implementation of country-of-origin 
labeling, they should vote for my amendment and ensure that USDA has 
the funding available to improve the rule. We passed the law and now we 
must remain vigilant to be sure it is implemented properly.
  As I mentioned, even if your State is not a producer of meat and meat 
products, worry about your consumers so that they know from where their 
meat product came. I urge my colleagues to help me do that by passing 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota, Mr. 
Daschle, has proposed his amendment. I would like to speak in support 
of that amendment. Other colleagues have already spoken. This is an 
important amendment to consider.
  Let me talk about the issue. We call it, this debate in the Congress, 
country-of-origin labeling: COOL. That does not mean anything to 
anybody. The question with this amendment and this issue is, Should the 
American people be able to determine where the meat they are purchasing 
at the meat counter comes from? Should they be able to know where this 
product comes from?
  We have a roomful of people wearing neckties in this Chamber. If 
anyone looks at their necktie, they can find from the label where that 
necktie comes from. The same is true with shirts and shoes and 
trousers. The same is true with much of what we use in our daily lives. 
We require labeling. We demand it. Why? Because the consumer is 
advantaged by having it. Except meat and meat products. Go to the 
grocery store; take a look at the grocery store shelf and evaluate the 
meat. Consumers do not have the foggiest idea where the products came 
from--none.
  Why is it important to be able to identify the origin of meat or meat 
products you purchase in this country? For a number of reasons. We 
produce the highest quality food in the world by far. Why? Because we 
have the highest standards, and we demand conformance to those 
standards. The American people, if they want to choose U.S.-grown beef, 
U.S.-produced beef or beef products or meat or meat products, at this 
point they cannot do it because the labeling does not exist.
  Now, the labeling of meat and meat products has been done routinely 
in many other areas of the world. Other countries do it. It is not 
impossible. It is not even prohibitively expensive. It is just if you 
have the will to do it, you do it. In our country, at this point, we 
have not had the will.
  Finally, the Congress passed a piece of legislation saying you must. 
We have a requirement that there be country-of-origin labeling, meat 
and meat products be labeled as to their origin, where they were 
produced.
  Now the House of Representatives has passed an amendment that says 
they are going to shut off funding for that at a time when the 
Department of Agriculture has already dragged its feet in implementing 
it because they do not want to implement it.
  Let me describe where this is important. Let me describe a May 1999 
inspection in Hermosillo, Mexico, when inspectors went into a plant in 
this little town in Mexico. I will tell you what they found. U.S. 
inspectors paid a rare visit, we are told, to the plant in May 1999 and 
were greeted by filth and flies. They cut off trade at once--or at 
least they thought they did.
  From the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

       Shanks and briskets [were] contaminated with feces . . . . 
     In the refrigerator . . . . A disease-condemned carcass was 
     observed ready for boning and distribution in commerce.

  Even before the inspectors left Mexico, Mexican officials were at 
work to restore this plant's right to sell meat to Americans. Over the 
following months, this plant regained its export license, switched 
owners, changed names, and yet the USDA has never returned.

  So an American consumer buying meat from this plant, can they know 
it? Will they know it? Will they have information that tells them this 
is where the meat comes from? The answer at this point, regrettably, 
is, no, they will not know whether that meat comes from the most 
regulated laboratory or most inspected plant in the United States or 
from this plant in Mexico where inspectors were greeted by filth and 
flies and a disease-condemned carcass ready for boning and distribution 
in commerce.
  Is it important for the American people to distinguish between cuts 
of meat that come from an inspected facility in this country that meets 
rigorous standards and a facility as described in this article that 
comes from that community in Mexico?
  What about the issue of BSE or mad cow disease? We now hear this week 
we have another case of mad cow disease in Japan; a 21-month-old bull 
is the country's ninth known case. It is devastating for the Japanese, 
I know, to have cases of mad cow disease or BSE. We know our neighbors 
to the north have had a case of mad cow disease. In January, a sick 
cow, staggering in a lot, was nonetheless slaughtered with other cows. 
They severed the head and put the head on a shelf, and that head sat on 
the shelf for 4 months. Finally, they sent it away for testing, to 
discover that the cow they slaughtered in January, in May was 
determined to have had mad cow disease.
  As a result, the Secretary of Agriculture cut off shipments of live 
cattle from Canada into this country. Why is that important? Because 
our beef herd is free of mad cow disease and has always been free of 
it. It is devastating to a beef industry, an industry in just North 
Dakota worth $500 million--half a billion. It is devastating to that 
industry to have an outbreak of mad cow disease. We want to protect our 
industry. That is why I offered the amendment earlier this afternoon 
that has been accepted. But we had USDA moving quickly last week to 
create what is called minimum risk for classification for Canada so 
younger animals from Canada can move into this marketplace. Should the 
American people, can

[[Page S14122]]

the American people, determine where their meat comes from--Canada, 
Mexico, Japan, or the U.S.?

  The answer, for those of us who strongly support country-of-origin 
labeling laws, is the American people deserve that opportunity and need 
the right to know where their meat and meat products come from; they 
need to be able to make selections as consumers in a thoughtful, 
intelligent way.
  Regrettably, that is not now the case. That is why the Congress 
previously passed legislation. Regrettably, the Department of 
Agriculture is dragging its feet, and the House of Representatives, in 
my judgment, has caved in to the big economic interests that want to 
scuttle this all together. They don't want to have anything to do with 
meat labeling. They say it costs too much.
  Only in this town would we not laugh out loud at the cost estimates 
that come from the USDA. They are a joke. Only in this town would it 
become part of legitimate debate and thoughtful discussion about how 
many billions--yes, billions--of dollars this would cost, they claim, 
to administer. That is complete, sheer, utter nonsense and USDA knows 
it.
  The question for this Congress is, Will it stand behind its previous 
decision and its previous judgment to require country-of-origin 
labeling on behalf of the American consumer? Will it stand behind that? 
I hope the answer is yes. If that answer is yes, then we need to 
support this bipartisan amendment that is offered by my colleague from 
South Dakota.
  One final point. In the haste to try to discredit the country-of-
origin labeling, the Department of Agriculture put out a notice that 
this would cost billions of dollars and they also indicated that it 
would have zero benefits. Does anyone really believe an estimate of the 
cost of the implementation of this law would provide no benefits--no 
benefits--to this country and the consumers of this country?
  That is why this attack on the country-of-origin labeling is a joke. 
It is why we must adopt this amendment. We must stand for the American 
consumer. I know big economic interests swing big clubs in this area. I 
have been in conference committees where we thought we had this done 
before long ago and we had folks from the meat industry out in the 
halls buttonholing people. The fact is, we need to get this done, and 
it needs to be done now. That is why I support the amendment offered by 
my colleague from South Dakota.
  While I have the floor, might I also indicate that the amendment I 
indicated to the Senator from Utah that I intended to offer is ready. I 
can offer it at the pleasure of the Senator from Utah and the Senator 
from Wisconsin. Senator Burns from Montana and I are both in the 
Chamber, and both of us would like to speak in support of our 
amendment. We very much hope the manager and the ranking member will be 
taking the amendment. But if not, of course, we will want a record 
vote.
  I will certainly offer the amendment on behalf of myself and Senator 
Burns at your pleasure. So I would be happy to hear what the Senator 
from Utah would like to have happen with respect to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in an effort to establish a glidepath for 
us to bring this particular airplane in for a landing, in consultation 
with the assistant Democratic leader, I intend to offer a unanimous 
consent request that would set a time agreement for the debate on the 
country-of-origin labeling amendment. It would be my intention, once 
that time has expired, that we would turn to the amendment the Senator 
from North Dakota and the Senator from Montana wish to offer. At that 
time, I would be prepared to attach a time agreement to their offering 
of that amendment, as well as offering a time agreement to attach to 
the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. As 
far as I know, those are the only three amendments remaining that would 
require a rollcall vote.
  So I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I would ask him to support 
my unanimous consent request that I will now propound, with the 
commitment on my part that as soon as the time has expired on the 
country-of-origin labeling amendment, we would then go to his 
amendment. I think the appropriate thing would be for him to offer his 
amendment at that time and then go directly into debate of that 
amendment.
  With that explanation, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the time until 4:30 this afternoon be equally divided for debate on the 
Daschle amendment No. 2078; provided, that at 4:30 the amendment be 
temporarily set aside and a vote occur in relation to the amendment at 
a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with 
the Democratic leader; provided further, that no amendments be in order 
to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the managers of the bill and indicated to 
them that Senator Harkin cannot be here until 4 o'clock, so I would ask 
unanimous consent that the request be modified to allow Senator Harkin 
15 minutes, beginning at 4 o'clock.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, am I to 
assume by that addition to the unanimous consent request that we are 
now looking at an hour and 15 minutes of additional debate or just 15 
of your 30 minutes locked in for Senator Harkin?
  Mr. REID. Just 15 of the 30 minutes for Senator Harkin.
  Mr. CRAIG. All right. Am I also to assume we would move to other 
amendments and we would see a series of stacked votes on this amendment 
and others?
  Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding--if this unanimous consent 
request is agreed to--that debate on the Daschle amendment will cease 
at 4:30; we will then address the other amendments--only two of which I 
know of would require a rollcall vote--and if the majority leader and 
the Democratic leader so determine, we would then have a series of 
stacked votes on those three amendments.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. Now, if other amendments arise, we can deal with them, 
but at the moment this is what we believe we have before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could respond briefly to my friend from 
Utah and all the Senate--staff and other Senators listening--if there 
are other amendments in addition to the Dorgan and Leahy amendments, 
the two managers should be advised forthwith because we would expect 
this bill to be completed and the voting to start at 5:30 today.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the assistant Democratic leader and repeat his 
plea to Senators on our side of the aisle. If there are additional 
amendments, the time to call them to our attention is rapidly running 
out.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Idaho?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask how much time would the Senator 
like?
  Mr. CRAIG. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho in opposition to the Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
oppose the Daschle amendment but with some degree of reluctance. I say 
that because in the 106th and the 107th Congresses I have been an 
outspoken advocate of country-of-origin labeling.
  I agree with a fair amount of the argument that has already been made 
today, that there is a clear consumer right to know, that there ought 
to be an identification trail or process by which we do, in effect, 
identify cuts of meat for the consumer.
  I am a firm believer that, as a U.S. consumer, I have a right to know 
what I am eating and from where it comes. I think it is a little 
foolish to compare it

[[Page S14123]]

with a silk tie or a piece of clothing. You do not just run cattle out 
of a factory. If you know the livestock process, you do not just label 
them at the time of birth. Maybe we will be. Maybe we will be putting a 
computer chip in the ear of every calf born and establish an 
identification trail from birth through to slaughter. I do not know. 
That may well be in the future of the livestock industry of this 
country. That might be a part of a process of national identification 
that the national cattle industry is talking about now as an important 
part of a trail.
  What I spent time doing the last week is reading the new regulations 
that are being proposed by USDA. While the Senator from North Dakota 
stood on the floor and said, you just cannot believe those cost 
estimates, everybody out there in farmland believes them. Every cow and 
calf producer and every hog producer suggests that $10 a head in real 
costs to comply is probably fairly realistic and that if you fail to 
comply or if you break the chain of compliance, you are up for a 
$10,000 fine. That is something I don't think I want to put my 
producers into at this moment, especially when they don't understand 
the regulations and I can't understand the regulations.

  There is a joke moving around out in cattle country today. If you go 
out and buy a truckload of cattle, you better take a trailer along to 
pull the paperwork with you because this is going to become a very 
complicated process.
  I talked to a sale ring operator about an hour ago. We don't have 
many livestock auctions left in our country today, but there are a few 
operating in Idaho. He is trying to figure out, when 75 or 100 small 
farm, ranch producers come with their cattle to his sale ring--and I am 
talking about an area where you have a lot of small herds of 100 or 
less, not large herds, as we think about them today out West or 
anywhere else in the country--how do you identify all of these cattle 
and put them together? Are they all going to be ear tagged? Do they 
have to be? Is that going to be a requirement? We don't know.
  More importantly, if you run those animals on public land and they 
are not in that nice, controlled, fenced, irrigated pasture--and almost 
all of my livestock run on public land during some time in the year, 
and I am talking about mountains and canyons and valleys and brush 
country--the ear tag that gets put in the ear as calves probably isn't 
there when they come home in the fall because they tore it off going 
through a brush thicket. That is the character of the industry.
  No, it isn't a controlled and simple industry. We have thousands of 
producers out there today. Most everybody thinks there is the big 
rancher out there with thousands of head of cows. Not true. Well over 
80 percent of the livestock is produced in herds of 50 or less. That is 
just the reality of the industry. Large feedlot operators put all of 
those cattle together, bring them to their feedlots. How does that 
paper trail exist? That is really the issue at hand.
  I am a believer in country-of-origin labeling. I do believe the cost 
we are talking about here, as projected by USDA, has reality to it. 
Recordkeeping for development and operation, first year: $582 million; 
$458 million in the outyears to maintain and operate; direct cost, $582 
million to $3.9 billion. Well, they back that off a little bit, but in 
reality we are still looking at direct cost to an industry that is 
struggling now to get back on its feet of about $1.7 billion.
  Is there a cry and a demand to know? I am not sure there is. But I 
want to know. I do want a reasonable and realistic approach to 
accomplishing this. Go read the new proposed regulations that are out 
for comment today. Try to tell me how you create and follow an ID trail 
through that maze, and the two or three or four times a feeder animal 
might change ownership from the time they are birthed on the ranch 
until they are a nice cut of beef on a supermarket shelf. That we are 
not confident of.
  You can darn well bet the processor and the retailer are going to try 
to pass that cost on, and they can at the consumer shelf. But I know 
the producer can't. The producer can't say to the feedlot operator or 
to the slaughterhouse: Well, because of this new regulation, you are 
going to have to pay me another $1 or $1.50 or $3 or $4, whatever it 
costs. That simply doesn't happen at that level of production, and it 
never has.

  To liken this to a tie or to liken this to one or two products that 
may be produced by one or two producers around the country and 
therefore very easy to label and very easy to know where from whence it 
comes, when you are talking about thousands of producers, large and 
small, aggregate numbers being put together for purposes of feeding and 
finishing--and what about commingling on the slaughterhouse floor? How 
do you manage that kind of situation?
  By the way, I don't think the Senator from Wyoming or the Senator 
from South Dakota mentioned, if you are selling a hamburger at 
McDonald's, you don't have to worry about it because you don't qualify. 
These regulations don't address you. Fifty percent of the industry's 
meat today is sold through fast foods, and they don't have to play the 
game. If you are a poultry raiser, do you have to play the game? No; 
you are exempt.
  Why are we looking at this in a rather sporadic pattern? If we are 
going to develop uniformity, if we are truly going to search for the 
right to know and a label that deals with country of origin, should not 
all meat products be labeled in a way that the consumer knows from 
whence they come? I think that is the right and the appropriate thing 
to do. We ought not handicap the producer.
  My livestock farmers and ranchers are split, to my knowledge, right 
down the middle. My Idaho cattle association opposes the regulation. I 
have the farm bureau who supports the regulation. I have the farmers 
union who I think continues to support it. I have our calf folks who 
strongly support it. Yet what I feel I am doing, if I vote to advance 
this rule into a fixed regulation, is putting some of those small 
producers out of business. I don't want to do that. There ought to be a 
simple way to do it, and yet what we have seen is a very complicated 
process. With that process, with those costs, I do believe it is 
reasonable for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to argue there may 
not be a benefit to it in relation to the cost.
  The national livestock industry is working at this moment to 
voluntarily put a national identification program together. We ought to 
be able to track our livestock. We should be able to know. When it 
comes to mad cow disease, you darn bet we ought to be able to track it 
and to assure that we keep our livestock herds safe and clean, and we 
have to date. We are not Johnny-come-latelies to this. We have had 
strict protocol for a decade or more to make sure we are not a Japan 
and that we are not a Canada, nor are we a Great Britain. And we are 
not because our livestock herds are clean, well managed, and USDA has 
done its homework. They deserve credit for it. You don't need to add a 
new paper trail to it just to assure there is safety.
  But I am still going to say we ought to try. I don't know that this 
is the way to do it. I don't know that you shove this out over the 
industry and force it down on them from the top down. There is a 
voluntary effort today to try to get this in place. If this were a 
pilot program or if we weren't going to implement it for a year but 
make sure we vetted it appropriately and established a pilot program in 
different livestock areas of the country--the western public land 
grazing industry is a good deal different from that in the South or 
that in the Midwest where herds are controlled and fenced and somewhat 
confined in the ability to shape herds and keep them, yet these rules 
and regulations are not reflective of those differences, and they are 
differences of real importance.
  I don't know how we get there. At least I do believe that what we are 
proposing--and I should not say ``we,'' USDA, and they have already 
backed off some of their numbers and come with different ones--is maybe 
not the way to go. As someone who voted for country-of-origin labeling, 
I did it with S. 544 in the 106th and S. 617. In 1998, we did it again. 
Senator Burns of Montana and I looked at the grading system to try to 
find a way to get where we all want to get. Now we are saying: OK, we 
have a freight train on the track. She is building up speed. It is just 
a regulatory process. We are only into the comment period. Let that 
train roll

[[Page S14124]]

down the track. Let's start implementing it.
  By the way, if you get caught up in it and you get fined $10,000 
because you couldn't comply, you didn't comply, it was impossible to 
comply, and you broke the paper trail or the chain of identification, 
so be it.
  I can't do that to my farmers and ranchers. I won't do that if it is 
my vote that does it. I am still going to insist we ought to try to 
comply in different ways to maintain a chain of understanding, a chain 
of information and knowledge and identification as to a point of origin 
where that meat came from. But remember, half of the meat you will 
consume after this becomes law will not be regulated by this law. So is 
there a blanket protection? No. Is there a consumer right to know? 
Well, 50 percent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was interested to have one of the 
Senators point out that most Senators don't know anything about this 
because it was done in conference committee, and I certainly qualify as 
one who didn't know anything about it at the time the conference 
committee came to the floor. I have had a crash course in country of 
origin labeling since I became chairman.
  I have come to several conclusions, which I will share with the 
Senate. No. 1, the bill was very badly written. I don't think there is 
any question about that. The idea of having consumer information with 
respect to food is a perfectly legitimate idea. It does indeed fit the 
pattern of consumers, and I have no problem with it. But it is clear, 
as we get into the details of this, that the bill that originally 
required it is very badly written. It uses the phrase, for example, 
``born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.''
  I ask this question: What if you only get two out of three of those? 
What does that do to you with respect to the piece of beef you are 
talking about? Suppose it was born in one country, fed in another, and 
slaughtered in a third? That is not likely, but it is entirely 
possible. And from which country does it come?
  You can say it is clearly not American beef if it was born in Canada, 
fed at feedlots in the U.S, and for some purpose, shipped to Mexico to 
be slaughtered, packed, and sent back. But what country is its country 
of origin? If you say it was born in Canada, it is Canadian.
  Why does the law say ``born, raised, and slaughtered''--those three 
categories--if only one matters?
  This is an interesting challenge because we have critters walking 
around on the range right now that were born somewhere prior to the 
passage of this law, and on which there are no records, which are going 
to end up in the food supply as hamburger or pot roast. Who is going to 
certify where they came from, with no records having been kept? That 
could be an argument for delaying the implementation of this 
legislation.
  Ultimately, I say with some facetiousness but some seriousness, we 
are talking about a situation where, in order to comply with the law, 
every animal has to have a birth certificate and a passport. The 
passport has to be stamped every time it crosses State lines. Someone 
called me and said: Bob, we have to pass this because there are all 
kinds of piglets being born in Canada and then being shipped to the 
United States. I find that they are shipped to the United States within 
days after their birth. They are born in Canada, but they are shipped 
here, truly as piglets, almost within days or weeks after birth, and 
then the entire processing takes place in the United States. These are 
American jobs, American facilities that are handling them.
  Do we say, because of their birth, they are Canadian, but because 
they are raised and slaughtered in the United States, does that make 
them naturalized American citizens or American pork, if you will? The 
law is badly written, and it clearly needs work or we would not be 
having this argument. Everyone I hear who opposes the Daschle amendment 
begins his statement by saying: I am in favor of country-of-origin 
labeling. But they are opposed to this particular legislation as it 
stands.

  One of the other things that is wrong with it, in my view, is the 
$10,000-per-violation provision. If I am running a supermarket, and 
someone says, here is some American beef, and I am potentially liable 
for a $10,000 violation for every single one of those hamburger patties 
because each sale is a separate circumstance, I am going to say to the 
producer: I will not take your beef unless you are prepared to 
indemnity me against any lawsuits that might come from the Trial 
Lawyers Association if some consumer activist comes in here and can 
prove that particular hamburger pattie originated in Canada. I am not 
going to run that risk.
  I think the Senator from Missouri was exactly right when he said the 
lawyers will be telling their corporate boards: Assume the worst and be 
as careful as you possibly can. Again, we have critters out there on 
the range that were born before the law was passed that are going to 
end up in the meat locker, and how are they going to be labeled? If 
they are mislabeled, there is a $10,000 fine for every pot roast that 
comes from those particular cows.
  I am not sure the House solution is the right solution. I am not 
prepared to go to conference saying I will stand with the House 
language, because I think there is an alternative that might well be 
worked out, and should be worked out in conference, to say this is how 
we buy a little more time to deal with the uncertainties we have here, 
and we hope give the authorizing committee the opportunity to take 
another bite at the apple and see if they cannot write a country-of-
origin labeling law that makes more sense than the present one.
  But the Daschle amendment, by its nature, and by the debate and 
legislative history that is being laid down, is saying you enforce the 
law exactly as it stands, no changes. For that reason, I intend to vote 
against the Daschle amendment because I think there needs to be 
changes, and I think the debate demonstrates there needs to be changes. 
I hope the Daschle amendment is defeated.
  When we get to conference, I hope the House language is modified and 
we use the vehicle of the conference to try to prod the authorizing 
committee in the direction of rewriting the basic bill so it can become 
workable.
  One final example of how the statute is written that is unworkable, 
in my opinion, is that it prohibits the use of an identification 
mechanism to verify origin of the covered commodity. The Senator talked 
about putting an ear tag on the cow. That is illegal under this law. He 
is talking about the expense of it. It is the commonsense way to tag 
cattle. It is illegal, the way this thing is written.
  So, as I say, as I have become acquainted with the whole matter, 
coming to it completely fresh and completely uneducated as to the 
issues before I had to look at it, I find myself in favor of the 
argument that consumers should know from which country the food comes. 
I have no problem with that at all, but I am convinced the law, as 
presently written, was so hastily put together that it has serious 
problems that cannot be fixed by regulations from USDA. I think they 
are acting in good faith in the regulations they drafted.
  The question came up in the hearing when Secretary Veneman was asked: 
Why are you proposing such a cumbersome regulation?
  She said: Because we believe it complies with the law.
  She was asked: Whose interpretation tells you this complies with the 
law?
  She said: The United States Department of Justice. The lawyers in the 
Justice Department looked at the law and said you have to have these 
burdensome regulations.
  So I think there is a solution to this. I think we can work our way 
through it in time. There is time between now and November for us not 
to argue about should we implement the law as it stands, or should we 
prevent the law from going forward as it stands, but do what I think is 
the commonsense thing, which is simply rewrite the law.
  Based on all of the research and evidence that has gone into the 
drawing of the regulation, we can now do it with a

[[Page S14125]]

little more leisure and more intelligence than was done the first time 
around.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the 
time will be taken equally from both sides.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to state my support for 
country-of-origin labeling. Manufactured goods sold in the United 
States have carried mandatory country-of-origin labels since the 1930s. 
Most of our major trading partners, including Europe and Japan, already 
require American producers to provide this information on our 
agricultural exports. Today as the landscape of international trade 
continues to change and expand, our Nation's fruits, vegetables and 
meats need to carry the same important information.
  Country-of-origin labeling will have two primary benefits. First, it 
will add value to our domestic commodities. American agriculture 
produces the highest quality products in the world, and they should be 
rewarded for that. Second, it will enable consumers to be knowledgeable 
about their purchases at the grocery store.
  I am very concerned that the House eliminated funding for the 
implementation of country-of-origin labeling in their version of the 
2004 Agriculture appropriations bill. It is important that the Senate 
conferees insist that no limits on the use of funds to enforce country-
of-origin labeling requirements be included in the conference report. I 
urge my colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  I understand that there are concerns about the implementation of 
country-of-origin labeling. I think country-of-origin labeling can and 
should be done in a way that does not overburden the retailer, the 
packer, or the producer.
  And although the USDA's proposed rules for the implementation of 
country-of-origin labeling are an improvement over the previously 
proposed guidelines, I still believe that the proposed rules make 
country-of-origin more burdensome than it needs to be.
  We need to let this implementation to go through so we can all work 
together to create a program that is simple, cost-efficient, and does 
not overburden the parties involved.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in reference to the Senator's 
sense-of-the-Senate. Obviously, there are strong emotions on this 
issue. One of the problems with this program is the ambiguous nature by 
which Congress authorized it. In particular, I would call my 
colleagues' attention to the most recent regulation proposed by USDA.
  During consideration of the 2002 farm bill, Congress wisely exempted 
processed foods from country of origin labeling requirements. The 
complex nature of such labeling would have discouraged the use of U.S. 
grown products as ingredients and thus would have harmed, not helped, 
American agriculture. Yet there is tremendous confusion in the food 
industry and at USDA, I might add, on what constitutes a processed 
product as it relates to country-of-origin labeling.
  I also would like to remind my colleagues that many of these 
processed products, for example, frozen produce, are already required 
to be labeled. Frozen processed products of foreign origin are required 
to be labeled for country-of-origin under section 304 of the Tariff Act 
and have been so required since the Tariff Act was passed in 1930. I 
certainly do not believe it was the intention of Congress to create a 
costly, duplicative program that provides absolutely no benefit to 
American growers, consumers, or producers.
  Some canned products would be covered by the program while others 
would not be covered. USDA's determination that frozen breaded shrimp 
is covered by the legislation is another example. As many of my 
colleagues are aware, USDA is using the Perishable Agricultural 
Commodities Act, PACA, as a blueprint for implementation of the 
Country-of-Origin Labeling program. Yet, at time of passage, breading 
is the type of process that would disqualify produce from getting a 
designation under PACA. It seems to me we are going to great lengths 
and undoubtedly expending great resources to mandate marking on 
processed products that it was no one's intention to cover.
  It is just this type of confusion that USDA references in its cost-
benefit analysis. We should not be concerned about whether or not we 
agree with the accuracy of the estimated costs. The fact is that the 
agricultural economy can not afford any of them. We ought to be clear 
that to the extent this program has support by producers, no one 
advocating extending its reach to processed foods. I reiterate my 
understanding that when the processed food exemption was included, 
Congress sought to avoid this excessive cost and the resulting 
confusion.
  In fact, after reviewing USDA's proposed rule as mandated by the law, 
John Graham, administrator of OMB's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, sent a letter to USDA's undersecretary for 
Marketing and Regulatory programs, Bill Hawks, which stated ``These 
figures indicate that this is one of the most burdensome rules to be 
reviewed by this administration.''
  USDA's cost-benefit analysis raised several disturbing points. First, 
the USDA has said that ``Current evidence on country-of-origin 
labeling, however, does not suggest that U.S. producers will receive 
sufficiently higher farm prices for U.S.-labeled products to cover the 
costs of labeling. Moreover, it is even possible that producers could 
face lower farm prices as a result of labeling costs being passed back 
from retailers and processors.''
  The USDA has also said that ``Annual costs to the U.S. economy in 
terms of reduced purchasing power resulting from a loss in productivity 
after a 10-year period of adjustment are estimated to range from $138 
million to $596 million.''
  I do not believe that when adopting Country-of-Origin Labeling 
legislation Congress intended to create such an expensive program that 
is detrimental to American agriculture, nor do I believe it was the 
intention to include processed products, including frozen produce. I 
hope we can work together to clarify the intention and the breadth of 
impact of this legislation and minimize the costs of its 
implementation. However, I do not believe that such a sufficient 
clarification can be achieved by simply defunding one portion of the 
program.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I would like 
also to say a few words about an amendment the Senate will be debating 
later today. The amendment will be offered by Senator Daschle and 
relates to country-of-origin labeling of meat and produce.
  I have long supported mandatory labeling of country of origin and was 
pleased this provision was included in the farm bill the President 
signed into law last year. New Mexico Cattle Growers and the New Mexico 
Farm Bureau strongly endorsed this legislation.
  I do believe consumers have a right to know where there food is 
coming from. I am disappointed that there are some in the meat packing 
industry and the administration that are trying to block implementation 
of this important legislation. Grudingly, the administration last month 
released a proposed rule for mandatory labeling.
  I believe the administration's proposed rules are far more 
complicated than they need to be. However, I hope Congress will allow 
the comment period and rule making to continue to give both proponents 
and opponents of labeling a fair opportunity to weigh in on this issue.
  I am pleased to cosponsor the Daschle amendment and hope that it 
passes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to implementing 
the mandatory country-of-origin labeling, also known as COOL.
  This Legisition would devastate the U.S. meat industry, cost 
thousands of American jobs and raise food prices for the customers the 
law purports to benefit.
  The USDA recently found the U.S. livestock industry would incur 
significannt costs and virtually no benefits from mandatory COOL. It 
concluded there was little evidence that mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling would lead to an increase in demand for commodities bearing 
the U.S. label, nor would it result in increased food safety. Rather, 
it found that COOL would impose up to $4 billion on ag industries in 
the first year and up to $600 million annually after the program had 
been in place for a decade. Inevitably,

[[Page S14126]]

these costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher 
prices at the supermarket.
  A recent Texas A&M University study estimated that changes brought 
about by mandatory country-of-origin labeling would cost nearly 2,000 
jobs in south Texas alone. Mandatory COOL would force many small 
producers with fewer and than 50 head of cattle out of business 
entirely. This would be a devastating blow just when our economy is 
beginning to show signs of recovery.
  In addition to the impact on consumers and the American meat 
industry, the imposition of COOL raises serious trade ramifications 
that could invite retaliation from important trade partners. In the 
midst of negotiating free and fair trade agreements with nations around 
the globe, imposing severe restrictions such as COOL hamper our efforts 
to break down trade barriers and grow the global economy.
  No one disputes that food safety is critical. But both supporters and 
opponents of COOL have stated this is a marketing issue and not one of 
food safety. When questioned by Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas 
in a recent House Agriculture hearing on this issue, every witness, 
including supporters such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and 
the National Farmers Union agreed COOL should not be associated with 
food safety, but with the marketing of agriculture products.
  U.S. agricultural industries provide the highest quality products in 
the world. Congressional actions should help, not hinder, their 
efforts. Imposing severe, costly restrictions that amount to nothing 
more than a marketing ploy is not the way to proceed.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment and commit to a thoughtful and thorough debate on this 
important issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on country-of-origin myths 
versus facts.
  No. 1, Myth: U.S. consumers do not care about country-of-origin 
labeling.
  Facts: That is not what people in Wyoming and national surveys 
indicate. Consumers overwhelmingly support labeling because it provides 
product information, increased consumer choice and the chance to 
support American agriculture.
  Two, of the largest consumer groups in the United States, Consumer 
Federation of America and the National Consumers League, strongly 
support mandatory COOL.
  No. 2, Myth: Country-of-origin labeling violates our international 
trade agreement commitments.
  Facts: Country-of-origin labeling law does not violate international 
trading agreements.
  Marking products is allowed by international trading rules. Under 
Article IX of GATT, countries can require marks of origin on imported 
products. Many nations already require country-of-origin labeling on a 
variety of food products. A recent GAO study found that 48 of our 57 
top trading partners require labeling for at least one of the 
commodities covered by COOL and 41 require labeling of meat at retail.
  No. 3, Myth: The cost of compliance with the country-of-origin 
labeling law will be extravagant in the first year and will increase 
consumer food costs.
  Facts: The USDA incorrectly assumed that new record keeping system 
requirements would meet to be established and implemented. The Majority 
of producers already keep records that can provide the required 
information.
  GAO reports that USDA exaggerated its initial cost project. The $1.9 
billion estimate was found to be ``questionable and not well 
supported.''
  USDA current estimates are equally flawed. Consumer organizations 
estimate the average cost to individual consumers will only be about 13 
cents per week.
  Also, consumer surveys support COOL.
  Fresh Trends, a 2002 survey, found that 86 percent of consumer 
respondents favor country-of-origin labeling. Of the 86 percent of 
consumers favoring COOL, 78 percent prefer mandatory labeling over 
voluntary labeling. And 60 percent of those questioned have been 
produce items in U.S. supermarkets that were grown in other countries. 
Also, 48 percent of the people identified South America as a source of 
produce, 33 percent Mexico, 12 percent Central America.
  North Carolina State University, in February 2003, found that 74 
percent of consumers believe the U.S. shouldn't buy all its food from 
other countries even if it is cheaper than food produced and sold here. 
Four out of 5 U.S. consumers believe that U.S.-grown food is fresher 
and safer. And 92 percent prefer to eat meat produced in the United 
States. Those surveyed were undecided about the safety of meat from 
outside the United States. Only 5 percent questioned are uncertain 
about U.S. produced meats. And two-thirds of consumers would pay more 
for food grown in the U.S. rather than abroad.
  Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services found that 37 
percent of consumers would pay between 10 and 20 percent more for U.S. 
fruits and vegetables. More than two-thirds of consumers note the 
country where fresh produce is grown. Also, 56 percent of consumers 
believe that U.S. produce is safer than imported produce. And 62 
percent of consumers would purchase U.S. produce if it had a COOL 
label. If price and appearance were equal, 61 percent of consumers 
would select U.S.-grown produce.
  Colorado State University, in March 2003, found that 75 percent of 
consumers prefer to buy beef with country-of-origin labeling. And 73 
percent of consumers would be willing to pay more for beef with 
country-of-origin labeling. Also, 69 percent of consumers are willing 
to pay more for steaks labeled, ``USA Guaranteed: Born and Raised in 
the United States'' than for those with no origin label. And 56 percent 
of that 69 percent were wiling to pay premiums.
  Tarrance Group and Northern Illinois University, in June 2001, found 
that 81 percent of those surveyed want their food to come from the 
United States.
  I urge passage of COOL.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator 
Leahy, in offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture 
appropriations bill that would preserve funding for our Nation's 
working lands conservation programs. This amendment parallels 
legislation I have cosponsored along with the Senator from Vermont. It 
would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, from diverting 
funding from key working lands programs, such as the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, and the Farm and Ranchland Protection 
Program, FRPP, to pay for technical assistance.
  The 2002 farm bill made it clear that the USDA should expand the 
opportunities for farmers across the country to participate in 
voluntary conservation programs that balance stewardship goals with on-
farm production. This has not happened though.
  In fiscal year 2003, the USDA transferred over $90 million away from 
working lands conservation programs to pay for technical assistance of 
the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP. This diversion of funds 
prevented countless numbers of farmers from signing up for working 
lands incentive programs. Unless this problem is corrected, the 
Department estimates that at least $77 million will be diverted in the 
coming fiscal year.
  For many States, including my own, conservation programs are a 
critical source of Federal assistance and are a valuable tool for 
helping small and specialty crop growers enhance their production while 
caring for the land. Funds from these programs reach an array of 
producers, including fruit and vegetable farmers, dairy farmers, and 
ranchers. The amendment being introduced today ensures that 
conservation payments would reach a broad range of farmers.
  Our amendment does not set new policy, rather, it reinforces the 
mandates Congress made in the 2002 farm bill. Congress recognized the 
importance of conservation in agriculture by significantly increasing 
funding for the working lands conservation programs. With the 
additional resources provided by the farm bill, Congress intended the 
USDA to expand the opportunity for farmers to practice farm and 
ranchland stewardship. Congress also anticipated the need to fund 
technical assistance for CRP and provided specific language in the 2002 
farm bill directing the Department to use mandatory funding to pay for 
CRP technical assistance.
  Unfortunately, the USDA has not followed through on congressional 
intent. Over the past year, the USDA has diverted over $90 million from 
working

[[Page S14127]]

lands incentive programs. Without corrective action, farmers' 
conservation options will be curtailed even more severely as the USDA 
transfers funding away from working lands incentive programs to pay for 
technical assistance for other programs in the Department.
  The amendment simply, but explicitly, states that the USDA may not 
take funding from working lands conservation programs to pay for CRP 
technical assistance. This clarification will allow our working lands 
programs to retain the funding that Congress provides. It does not add 
or subtract funding, rather it makes sure that the funds are used by 
the program for which Congress intended.
  Let me also emphasize that the amendment does not require USDA to 
shut down CRP in fiscal year 2004. It continues to allow the USDA to 
exercise its authority to provide CRP technical assistance through 
mandatory funding, exactly as Congress originally directed in the 2002 
farm bill.
  In closing, I join my distinguished colleagues today because I 
believe it is time that Congress step in and protect our working lands 
programs from being raided by the USDA. Until we can reach a broader 
agreement on implementation of the 2002 farm bill provision on 
conservation technical assistance, it is imperative that we hold our 
working lands conservation programs harmless. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate what my colleagues are trying 
to do. Clearly there is a problem.
  When we passed the farm bill, we made an unprecedented investment in 
conservation.
  First as chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee with jurisdiction 
over conservation, then as the ranking member of the subcommittee, I 
worked closely with my colleagues on both sides to increase funding for 
EQIP and WHIP and the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program and to 
create the Grasslands Reserve Program and increase the acreage for CRP 
and WRP.
  Unfortunately, I am unable to support this amendment, because while 
it attempts to correct an injustice, it does not fix the problem.
  This amendment, if enacted into law, would stop the CRP program in 
its tracks.
  The Conservation Reserve Program is one of the most successful 
conservation programs in agriculture. It is a win-win for agriculture 
and the environment. It benefits landowners and wildlife. In fact, it 
has been proved to be the most effective federal program for production 
of waterfowl in the United States.
  In Idaho, we had more than 55,000 acres recently accepted into the 
program. If this amendment were enacted, those acres could not be 
enrolled because of lack of technical assistance funding.
  Likewise, I have been a strong proponent for the Continuous CRP 
program. This important program provides tremendous benefits for the 
environment and maintains working lands. I have continually encouraged 
USDA to enroll more CRP acreage in this important part of the CRP 
program. However, this program would come to a screeching halt without 
technical assistance funding.
  I share my colleagues' concerns and interest in finding a solution, 
but this is not a full solution. I cannot support an amendment that 
would have such a disastrous effect on the CRP program.
  As chairman of the subcommittee, I am committed to working with 
Agriculture Committee Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Harkin and 
other interested members to find a solution.
  I urge my colleagues to seek a workable solution that protects all of 
our conservation programs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment, 
along with my colleagues Senators Leahy and Snowe. This amendment will 
protect the funding for important working lands conservation programs, 
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, the Farm and 
Ranchland Protection Program, FRPP, the Wildlife Habitat Improvement 
Program, WHIP, and the Grassland Reserve Program, GRP. It will do so by 
prohibiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture from diverting funds 
from these working lands conservation programs in order to fund the 
technical assistance costs of another conservation program, the 
Conservation Reserve Program, CRP.
  Working lands conservation programs provide vital assistance to a 
large number of farmers, but they are especially critical to small and 
specialty crop growers, such as the potato and blueberry growers in my 
State of Maine. These programs help farmers manage their land in ways 
that improve production while, at the same time, protecting the 
environment, reducing agricultural runoff, and enhancing wildlife 
habitat.
  Unfortunately, despite the large increase in funding for these 
programs contained in the Farm Bill of 2002, a significant number of 
family farmers who wish to participate in these programs--who seek 
assistance in their efforts to change their farming practices in order 
to improve water quality and availability in their communities, or to 
restore wetlands--have been turned away.
  They have been turned away because the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
decided to divert funds from these working lands conservation programs 
in order to pay for technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve 
Program. Although the Conservation Reserve Program is itself a worthy 
program, it serves a different purpose than the working land 
conservation programs. The most significant of the differences between 
these programs is that the Conservation Reserve Program provides 
payments to farmers who take farmland out of production, while the 
working land conservation programs provide assistance to farmers who 
want to keep farming their land--but to do so in a way that helps the 
environment.
  When we enacted the farm bill of 2002, we recognized the value of 
both of these types of programs, the Conservation Reserve Program and 
the working lands conservation programs, and provided significant 
funding for both types of programs. The Department of Agriculture's 
decision to divert funds from the working lands conservation programs 
in order to pay for technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve 
Program is not consistent with the carefully crafted balance reached in 
the farm bill. It is also inconsistent with the commitment made by 
Congress and the administration to America's farmers and ranchers--a 
commitment to provide assistance to those who wish to participate in 
voluntary conservation programs while keeping their land in 
agricultural production.
  This amendment closes the loophole that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has used to divert funds from these working lands 
conservation programs in order to pay for other priorities that the 
Department deems more important. With this amendment, we keep the 
commitment made to our farmers and ranchers in the farm bill of 2002--a 
commitment to support and assist them as they work to enhance their 
stewardship of the land. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
request that the time for the quorum call be charged equally to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the time running 
on the Daschle amendment be set aside and reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. And that we now allow the Senator from North Dakota to 
proceed with his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this would not 
prohibit Senator Harkin from coming later and speaking if desires.
  Mr. BENNETT. It would be my intention, when Senator Harkin arrives to 
speak on the Daschle amendment, to ask that the Senator from North 
Dakota summarize his remarks to allow the Senator from Iowa to speak. I 
ask if the Senator from North Dakota would agree to do that.

[[Page S14128]]

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I missed the comment by the Senator from 
Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. When Senator Harkin arrives--we have been saving time 
for him--I ask if the Senator from North Dakota would summarize his 
statement at that point and allow Senator Harkin to make his comments 
on the Daschle amendment, after which we could then return to the 
Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. If Senator Harkin arrives on the floor, I will begin 
slowing down, if that is the question, and come to a complete stop at 
an appropriate moment.
  I do not intend to speak at great length on this amendment. I know my 
colleague, Senator Burns, also wishes to speak, as well as my 
colleague, Senator Conrad, wishes to speak. My expectation is that the 
presentations will all be relatively brief, but I certainly would 
respect the interests of the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Could we enter into an agreement that the total time 
consumed on the Dorgan amendment, without allocation to one side or the 
other, would be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me understand, the 30 minutes would be 
under my control?
  Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, so that anyone who wished to speak 
would have to get the permission of Senator Dorgan, and that 30 minutes 
might be interrupted by Senator Harkin's presentation, but the full 30 
would be under the control of the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand.


                           Amendment No. 2117

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I can send the amendment to the desk if we 
wish to consider it now. My thought was it would be accepted and 
probably be put in a managers' amendment. I send the amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Burns, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2117.

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

 (Purpose: To increase funding for guaranteed broadband loans, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 47, line 13, strike ``$335,963,000'' and insert 
     ``$647,000,000''.
       On page 48, line 2, strike ``$9,116,000'' and insert 
     ``$15,116,000''.
       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. REDUCTION IN TRAVEL AMOUNTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, each 
     amount provided by this Act for travel expenses is reduced by 
     the pro rata percentage required to reduce the total amount 
     provided by this Act for such expenses by $6,000,000.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might describe this amendment--and I 
will do so rather briefly because I spoke about it yesterday--I think 
we are on the road perhaps to having this amendment accepted, in which 
case we would not need a recorded vote. As I indicated, I offer this 
amendment with my colleagues, Senator Burns of Montana and Senator 
Conrad of North Dakota. This amendment deals with a provision we put in 
the farm bill having the rural utility services create a broadband loan 
program.
  During consideration of the farm bill, which we enacted in the 
Congress, we provided a very important provision that will provide for 
loans for the build-out of broadband capability throughout rural areas 
of our country.
  The build-out was part of $100 million in direct spending to 
subsidize $3.5 billion of loan funds at good interest rates that would 
entice those who are interested in building out the infrastructure of 
broadband capability to rural areas to begin doing so.
  Now, why is that important? It is important because if someone is on 
the wrong side of the digital divide and they do not have broadband 
capability in rural areas, their opportunity for economic development 
is gone. So we have been trying to find ways to help develop the build-
out of the infrastructure for broadband capability in all areas of the 
country, especially and including rural areas.
  The $100 million in that bill was going to provide an opportunity for 
$3.5 billion in broadband loans over the 6 years, as I indicated.
  The Rural Utility Service announced they were going to combine $40 
million in the farm bill for the first 2 years and package that up. 
They said they would make $1.4 billion in loans available for broadband 
buildout. As a result of that, they would provide not only loans but 
$80 million in loan guarantees, and so they would have $1.295 billion 
of loans at the Treasury rate of interest.
  This is easily the biggest broadband loan program in the history of 
this country. Why is it important? Let me give an example, going back 
to the 1930s. In the 1930s, very few farms and rural areas were wired 
for electricity, so we created the Rural Electrification Act, the REA 
Program, and began stringing lines to the rural reaches of America. 
That program was remarkably successful in providing to small towns and 
family farms in this country the capability of using electricity to 
enhance their productivity. When we electrified rural America, we 
dramatically increased the productivity of America's family farms.
  We now are in a circumstance where we talk about the information 
revolution and the new technology and information and something called 
broadband. Broadband simply describes the diameter of the pipes through 
which information flows. If you have dial-up connections, you have a 
computer, and you know there is a certain timeframe moving around your 
computer and moving around the Internet. If you have broadband or 
advanced communications services, it is a bigger pipe and you can move 
vast amounts of data very quickly.
  The opportunity to do that is critically important to small areas, 
rural areas of the country in order for them to attract economic 
opportunity and economic development. Without it, they are consigned to 
a future without that kind of economic opportunity. That is why we are 
trying to provide it here, just as we did in the underlying 1996 act 
which I helped write. We talked about advanced services then, 
comparable services at comparable rates. You have broadband in most big 
cities now. The question is, will rural areas have the same 
opportunities?
  What happened was RUS put this money together and they were going to 
put out nearly $1.3 billion of loans at 4.9 percent. Again, easily the 
most significant program of building out information infrastructure. 
What happened was they set a July 31 deadline for applications. They 
received applications for $1 billion in loans. That means there are 
people out there very anxious to move this capability out to rural 
areas. That is a big deal. This is not just some theoretical argument. 
This is talking about whether, in the rural reaches of America, you 
will have economic opportunity and jobs and growth again.
  We have $1 billion in loan applications. Now the language that has 
been included in the Agriculture appropriations bill essentially 
eliminates the broadband section of the farm bill. It will put some 
money into loans, yes, but does so without the mandatory spending for 
it and would essentially cut in half the loan levels.
  That is particularly bothersome because what is going to happen is 
they are going to have to start over down at USDA with a much smaller 
amount of money and much less impact on broadband capability.
  The proposal I offer with my colleagues would provide an additional 
$6 million. This does not make us whole, but instead of going from $20 
million down to $9 million, roughly we go back up to $15 million. It is 
not the full money we need, but it would increase the $9.1 million to 
$15.1 million. This is not a massive amount of money, given the bill we 
are talking about. It just is not. But it is very important for us to 
pass this amendment because otherwise we will have had a significant 
start, with great promise, and will have brought this to a grinding 
halt, and we will have the promise of broadband buildout all across 
rural America only to find out Congress put the brakes on it. That is 
not something we want to do.

[[Page S14129]]

  I mentioned yesterday, recently when I was in my hometown of 300 
people, a small community in northwestern North Dakota, I walked into 
what used to be my old boyhood home. I asked the folks if I could just 
stop in and see it. I hadn't been there for many years. The young woman 
who now lives there with her husband and children said she was happy to 
show me my old home. I looked around. In her kitchen--I hope she won't 
mind me saying this--on the shelf she had a piece of equipment. I 
couldn't recognize it at first, but it had a camera attached to it, and 
the camera was taking a picture of something on a spool, hanging on a 
metal spool. It was a bracelet. She said: I am taking a picture of this 
bracelet. Then I scan it and put it on the Internet, on eBay, because I 
sell things on eBay.

  Here is a woman in a very small community in western North Dakota who 
is a merchant selling products on eBay. It shows that all over this 
country people have enterprising hopes about what they want to do, what 
kind of business they want to be engaged in. But if we do not have the 
capability to build out broadband services to rural areas, we will 
forever consign them to a dismal economic future.
  Let me make one final point. That little town I grew up in, Regent, 
ND, a wonderful community, is part of Headinger County. My home county 
is larger than the State of Rhode Island. When I left it, there were 
5,000 people living there. There are now 2,800 citizens living in 
Headinger County. The State demographer says in the year 2020 they 
expect it to be 1,800 people; 5,000 to 1,800 in a county the size of 
Rhode Island, slightly larger.
  Those people want opportunity. They want to build and grow. They want 
some hope for the future. That woman, in that little home selling on 
eBay, represents that spark of enterprise, that hope that maybe things 
can be better. Maybe you can build businesses in those rural areas. But 
you simply cannot do it if you don't move ahead with this program we 
put in the farm bill.
  I introduced legislation about 3 years ago. Much of it was put in the 
farm bill to create these loan funds. I was astounded to learn this 
appropriations bill effectively emasculates the funding that would have 
been automatic for the 6-year period, that would have created this 
aggressive broadband buildout. That is why we have to restore some of 
this funding. It is important.
  People say it is a little issue. It is not a little issue to people 
in my hometown or other hometowns all across this country, living in 
rural areas, who want to make a living and want to have some hope for 
the future. That is what this is about.
  We have already had a pattern and a template for how this works. It 
is the old REA Program. It worked in a wonderful way to electrify rural 
America and offer people light and hope. This is the same proposition. 
Let's not miss this opportunity.
  Mr. President, I indicated Senator Burns, Senator Conrad, Senator 
Clinton, and Senator Leahy are cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent they 
be added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield some time to the Senator from Montana, followed 
by time to my colleague from North Dakota. I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Montana and if he wishes more, there is certainly more 
available.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from North Dakota.
  Mr. President, if anyone in this body said the Government could 
invest $40 million and, in less than a year, generate commitments to 
invest or leverage $1.2 billion in job-creating, productivity-enhancing 
and life-improving infrastructure in some of America's most rural and 
remote areas, I would suspect the Members of this body and the public 
at large would judge that to be a successful and exciting economic 
development strategy. That is exactly what has happened.
  This broadband loan program is administered by the Rural Utility 
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. In 10 short 
months the RUS broadband loan program has generated about $1 billion in 
applications, primarily in Treasury rate-of-interest loans that contain 
at least 20 percent equity leverage. That is a pretty good return.
  Let me build on what my friend from North Dakota said. I was pretty 
small when the debate on REA started, the Rural Electrification 
Administration. There is not one Senator in this body who has not gone 
to an annual meeting of an REA. My first line is always: If it had not 
been for REA, in the country areas we would be watching television by 
candlelight. That is a truism. Now we are in a different era. We are in 
an era when there is an infrastructure of the deployment of broadband. 
Broadband expanded services is as important to downtown America as it 
is to rural areas because of their ability to communicate instantly and 
to move massive amounts of information instantly.

  We have heard of the digital divide. This is a just one small step 
that closes that gap or that divide. It is working. Figures back it up. 
I was as surprised as anyone when this funding was taken out of the 
bill because it was not working. That wasn't the reason at all. 
Broadband technologies, whether delivered by fiber, licensed or 
unlicensed spectrum, or satellite, have the power to transform 
communities.
  High-speed access to the Internet is becoming as important to the 
rural economic development as good roads or good sewers or even 
electricity itself. It opens worlds of opportunities for rural 
businesses, farmers, and ranchers and provides up-to-the-minute market 
information; and rural schools for distance learning.
  We still have a boarding school in my State of Montana. You take your 
high school students to school on Monday morning and you do not see 
them until Friday night. That is remote. That is frontier.
  This technology is also a way to expand curriculum and allow those 
young people to have the same educational opportunities as young people 
in the more urban areas.
  Think about what it does to the rural areas as far as telemedicine. 
We know we have an aging population in rural areas. I have 14 counties 
that have no doctors at all. The delivery of health care is completely 
different than it was years ago.
  We have as much obligation to make sure there is a buildup of 
broadband as we had with electricity after World War II. I know what 
was in our house. Our house didn't have electricity until about 1949-
1950. I know that it transformed rural America. This provides the same 
possibility.
  With this amendment, we have restored a tool which investors can use 
to build up this important piece of infrastructure which will become 
very important to rural America.
   If the Federal Government could invest $40 million and in less than 
a year generate commitments to invest about $1.2 billion in job 
creating, productivity enhancing, life improving infrastructure in some 
of America's most rural and emote areas, I suspect most members of the 
body and the public at large would judge that to be a successful and 
exciting economic development strategy.
   That is exactly what has happened in the broadband loan program 
administered by the Rural Utilities Service RUS, of the United States 
Department of Agriculture. In ten short months, the RUS broadband loan 
program has generated about a billion in applications primarily for 
treasury rate of interest loans that contain at least 20 percent equity 
leverage.
   Broadband technologies whether delivered by fiber, licensed or 
unlicensed spectrum or satellite have the power to transform 
communities. High-speed access to the Internet is becoming as important 
to rural economic development as good roads and sewers. It opens worlds 
of opportunity for rural business, offers farmers up to the minute 
market information, rural schools the chance to offer advanced 
placement courses and rural health care facilities access to the finest 
medical advice and services available.
   While many areas served by companies and cooperatives in the RUS 
telecommunications program had modern advanced services, too many rural 
communities were far outside the service territory of these broadband 
pioneers. The RUS broadband loan program offered an exciting 
opportunity to close this digital divide.
   As one of the co-authors of the broadband loan provisions contained 
in the farm bill, I strongly believe that

[[Page S14130]]

the Senate must keep faith with the carriers, cooperatives, communities 
and consumers who have been inspired to launch plans to bring broadband 
services to hometown America.
   The broadband loan program builds on a proven sixty-eight year model 
which has brought modern telephone, electric and water infrastructure 
to rural areas. The farm bill added a new broadband title to the Rural 
Electrification Act. It also created a reliable, predictable multi-year 
stream of mandatory funding to instill confidence that sufficient funds 
would be available until expended to encourage investment.
   Unfortunately, the funding for this program which is so vital to the 
economic health of rural America has been severely cut. We should be 
doing everything possible to incentivize broadband buildout in rural 
America rather than targeting this creative program which promises to 
bring huge benefits to vast areas of the country. I call on my 
colleagues to support the Dorgan-Burns amendment to restore funding to 
this critical program. It is very important.

  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Conrad from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for 
proposing this amendment and our friend and neighbor, Senator Burns 
from Montana, for cosponsoring it. This is an important amendment. I 
was among the handful of negotiators of the farm bill representing the 
Senate as we negotiated with the House on the final provisions. These 
provisions were especially important to those of us who represent the 
most rural areas in the country. If you do not have broadband access in 
the modern world, you are left out and left behind, and your economic 
prospects are badly diminished.
  On the other hand, if you are part of this extraordinary development, 
all of a sudden distance and the barriers of distance fall away.
  We know the greatest difficulty for our State has been our distance 
from markets. That is what has disadvantaged the economic opportunity 
for people from North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota. I see the 
Senator from Idaho--his State as well, and Wyoming, and so many other 
States in the heartland of America.
  The provisions that were put into the farm bill were designed to give 
us a chance to open new opportunities and to reduce the barriers of 
distance. Twenty million dollars is a modest amount of money. But in 
the appropriations bill they cut it by more than 50 percent--to $9.1 
million. We all know that amount of money in and of itself is not going 
to make an extraordinary difference. But that is not how it works. That 
small amount of money leverages much larger amounts of loans. It is 
more than 30 to 1. On a $6 million amount, you would increase, by at 
least $180 million, loans that are available across the country. I have 
been told it may be more than $300 million because what you are doing 
with a small amount of money is leveraging a large amount of lending to 
build broadband in the rural parts of this country.
  This is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of economic development. 
It is a matter of keeping the promise that was made in the farm bill. 
Nothing could be more clear. Nothing could be more important in terms 
of economic opportunity in the rural parts of the country than to make 
sure they are part of this developing technology.
  In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower recognized the importance of having a 
nation connected by an interstate highway system. He proposed the 
legislation that provided for Federal funding.
  That is precisely what this does with the new technology--to provide 
broadband that ties America together that provides opportunity.
  Every year, I put on an event in North Dakota which we call 
``Marketplace for Entrepreneurs.'' Last year, there were 8,000 people 
in attendance. We have hundreds of classes. Some of them are on how you 
write a business plan or how to use the Internet or how to use 
broadband to develop your business, to expand your business, to create 
a business.
  There is nothing more hopeful in terms of opportunity in rural areas 
than to have this new technology available.
  Congress ought not to turn its back on a promise just made and cut 
the funding.
  I am told now this $6 million will provide an additional loan amount 
of over $275 million--$6 million becomes $275 million in loans all 
across the rural part of the country. Why? How can that be? How can $6 
million turn into $275 million? It is because you need just a little 
bit of a guarantee to get over the hump to cause lenders to make these 
loans. It gives some additional assurance that it is going to be 
repaid. It is very interesting. History shows that in fact the money is 
repaid. It works.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will take one final minute, and I think 
we are finished speaking on this side. And I will yield back the 
remainder of my time when we are finished.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish this discussion by adding another point. 
There is a book titled ``Distance is Dead.'' The book describes the 
information revolution. From almost anyplace you are a click away from 
anywhere. In North Dakota, we are a click away from the Hudson River. 
We are as close to Manhattan as the Hudson River with telecommunication 
and new technologies. But that is only the case if you have the 
buildout of broadband, if you have the capability to allow people to 
use this Internet in the way that most urban areas are able to do it.
  We have in rural areas--I have mentioned my hometown--much that 
others aspire to recreate in our country: strong schools, good 
neighbors, great places to raise kids. We have a lot of things that 
make these small towns in rural areas wonderful places to live. But we 
need jobs there. We need economic opportunity development there.
  If distance is dead, then opportunity is born in rural areas with 
information technology. If we are a click away from anywhere, if we are 
a nanosecond away by clicking a mouse and providing information 
anywhere, any time, then we have opportunities to attract businesses 
and create jobs in these wonderful areas of America's heartland. But if 
we do not have the buildout of the infrastructure, if you do not have 
similar opportunities with broadband development in rural areas, then 
you have what is called a digital divide.
  If you are on the wrong side of that digital divide, if you live on 
the wrong side of that digital divide, you are in big trouble; your 
community is going nowhere. That is why this is an important issue. It 
is why we have been working on it for some long while and why this 
amendment deserves to be approved.
  We have no further speakers. I know Senator Bennett has other things 
he wishes to do with the bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. There has been no objection to this amendment raised on 
this side. I ask now for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from North Dakota.
  The amendment (No. 2117) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand now that Senator Leahy has 
an amendment that he would like to offer and debate. I ask the Senator 
if he would agree to a half an hour time limit on his amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the Senator from Utah suggesting a half 
hour evenly divided?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes, half an hour evenly divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. I think that would be enough, but just to be on the safe 
side,

[[Page S14131]]

I will check with a couple of Members. Could we say 40 minutes evenly 
divided? I assume I will be able to yield some of that back.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am happy to propound a unanimous 
consent agreement that there be 40 minutes equally divided devoted to 
the Leahy amendment with no second-degree amendments allowed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2119

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island, and Senator Clinton. I ask, first, that the 
pending amendment be laid aside and that I send the amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reed and Mrs. Clinton, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2119.

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

    (Purpose: To restrict the use of funds for certain conservation 
                               programs)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. USE OF FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     pay the salaries or expenses of employees of the Department 
     of Agriculture to carry out the conservation reserve program 
     established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et 
     seq.) using funds made available under paragraphs (4) through 
     (7) of section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3841(a)).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is quite straightforward. We 
offered it to restore the conservation funding commitment Congress and 
the administration made to farmers and ranchers in the 2002 farm bill. 
I was one of the conferees in that farm bill. I remember we went all 
night long. We went weekend after weekend. The final bill was a very 
delicately put together compromise between Republicans and Democrats in 
both bodies and the administration, between those in the East, those in 
the West, those in the Midwest. It was a very delicate balance because 
of the amount of money involved and how it would be allocated.
  It was especially important because in this bill there was concern 
when it was passed whether those in the East would vote for the bill. 
Our amendment addressed the problem that Senators, if not all Senators, 
have been hearing about.
  Despite the historic conservation funding levels of the 2002 farm 
bill, the family farmers and ranchers trying to restore wetlands are 
offering to change the way they farm to improve air and water quality 
are rejected when they seek USDA help. Producers are turning away 
because of a Department of Agriculture decision earlier this year to 
divert $158.7 million from working lands conservation programs, to pay 
for the conservation reserve and wetlands reserve. It goes directly 
against the clear directive in the 2002 farm bill. That directed the 
USDA use mandatory funds for the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay 
for CRP and WRP technical assistance.
  This may sound technical, but the fact is, by not following what the 
Congress voted for, Republicans and Democrats alike, we end up having 
the administration raid the farm bill, raid working lands programs.
  This chart shows what happens: $57 million diverted from EQIP, the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program; $18 million diverted from the 
Farmland and Rangeland Protection Program; $9.6 million diverted from 
the Grasslands Reserve Program; and $5.6 million from the WHIP, 
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, to pay for technical assistance.
  All these are included for different reasons. The Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program helps those who fish and hunt. They were part of the 
overall compromise. Their money is gone.
  The language of the statute, a relevant colloquy, supports this 
interpretation, and the General Accounting Office concurred in a recent 
memo that we settled a very clear intent of the Congress how that money 
be spent. I ask unanimous consent that memo be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     United States


                                    General accounting Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 2002.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     Chairman,
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
         Development, & Related Agencies, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Henry Bonilla,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA 
         & Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives.
       Funding for Technical Assistance for Conservation Programs 
     Enumerated in Section 2701 of the 2002 Farm Bill
       This responds to your letters of August 30, 2002 (from 
     Chairman Bonilla) and September 16, 2002 (from Chairman Kohl 
     and Ranking Minority Member Cochran) requesting our opinion 
     on several issues relating to funding technical assistance 
     for the wetlands reserve program (WRP) and the farmland 
     protection program (FPP). You asked for our views on the 
     following issues:
       (1) Does the annual limit on fund transfers imposed by 15 
     U.S.C. Sec. 714i (known as the section 11 cap) apply to 
     Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds used for technical 
     assistance provided the WRP and FPP as authorized by the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill).
       (2) Is the Department of Agriculture's Conservation 
     Operations appropriation available for technical assistance 
     for the WRP and the FPP? and
       (3) Did the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) July 
     18, 2002, decision not to apportion funds for technical 
     assistance for the WRP and the FPP violate the Impoundment 
     Control Act.\1\
       For the reasons given below, we conclude that:
       (1) the section 11 cap does not apply to funds for 
     technical assistance provided for the conservation programs 
     enumerated in section 3841, title 16, U.S.C., as amended by 
     section 2701 of the 2002 Farm Bill;
       (2) the Conservation Operations appropriation is not an 
     available funding source for the WRP and the FPP operations 
     and associated technical assistance; and
       (3) OMB's failure to initially apportion WRP and FPP funds 
     was a programmatic delay and did not constitute an 
     impoundment under the Impoundment Control Act. Further, since 
     OMB has approved recently submitted apportionments for these 
     two programs, and since budget authority for both the WRP and 
     the FPP was made available for obligation, there was no 
     impoundment of funds in fiscal year 2002.


                               background

       Section 2701 of the 2002 Farm Bill, Pub. L. No. 107-171, 
     116 Stat. 278, 279 (enacted on May 13, 2002) (codified at 16 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3841 and 3842) amended section 1241 of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841, to provide 
     that the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) shall use the 
     funds of the CCC to carry out seven conservation programs, 
     including the provision of technical assistance to, or on 
     behalf of, producers. The WRP and the FPP are among the 
     conservation programs named in the 2002 Farm Bill that are to 
     be funded with CCC funds.
       In its June 19, 2002, apportionment request, the Department 
     of Agriculture (Agriculture) asked OMB to apportion a total 
     of $587,905,000 in CCC funds to the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service (NRCS) for both financial and technical 
     assistance related to section 3841 conservation programs. SF 
     132, Apportionment and Reapportionment Schedule for Farms 
     Security and Rural Investment Programs, Account No. 1221004, 
     July 18, 2002. Of the amount requested, Agriculture 
     designated $68.7 million for technical assistance to be 
     provided under the conservation programs. In its July 18, 
     2002, apportionment, OMB apportioned all of the funds for 
     financial and technical assistance requested for the 
     conservation programs, except $22.7 million designated for 
     WRP and FPP technical assistance. Id. OMB reports that it 
     did not apportion funds for WRP and FPP technical 
     assistance at that time, because OMB believed that the 
     section 11 cap, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 714i, limited the amount of 
     funds that could be transferred from CCC to other 
     government agencies for technical assistance associated 
     with the section 3841 conservation programs, and that CCC 
     funding of WRP and FPP technical assistance would exceed 
     the section 11 cap. Letter from Philip J. Perry, General 
     Counsel, OMB, to Susan A. Poling, Managing Associate 
     General Counsel, GAO, September 16, 2002. In discussions 
     with Agriculture regarding the use of CCC funds in excess 
     of the section 11 cap for section 3841 technical 
     assistance, OMB indicated to Agriculture that either CCC 
     funds subject to the section 11 cap or Agriculture's 
     Conservation Operations appropriation could be used to 
     fund this technical assistance, Id.
       OMB reports that Agriculture recently submitted a new 
     apportionment request for $5.95 million for WRP technical 
     assistance (as well as the Conservation Reserve Program) 
     which OMB approved on September 3,

[[Page S14132]]

     2002. Id. OMB also reports that Agriculture submitted a new 
     apportionment request for an additional $2 million in FPP 
     financial assistance, which OMB approved on September 11, 
     2002, bringing the total apportionment for the FPP to the $50 
     million authorized by section 3841. Id.


                               discussion

     1. Section 11 Cap
       The question whether the section 11 cap (15 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 714i) applies to technical assistance provided through 
     the conservation programs authorized by 16 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 3481, 3482, is one of statutory construction. It is 
     a well-established rule of statutory construction that 
     statutes should be construed harmoniously so as to give 
     maximum effect to both whenever possible. B-259975, Sept. 18, 
     1995, 96-1 CPD Sec. 124; B-258163, Sept. 29, 1994. Based upon 
     the language of the relevant statutes, we can read the 
     statutes in a harmonious manner, and, in doing so, we 
     conclude that the section 11 cap does not apply to technical 
     assistance provided under the section 3841 conservation 
     programs.
       The section 11 cap is set fort in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 714i, 
     which states, in pertinent part:
       ``The Corporation may, with the consent of the agency 
     concerned, accept and utilize, on a compensated or 
     uncompensated basis, the officers, employees, services, 
     facilities, and information of any agency of the Federal 
     Government, including any bureau, office, administration, or 
     other agency of the Department of Agriculture . . . . The 
     Corporation may allot to any bureau, office, administration, 
     or other agency of the Department of Agriculture or transfer 
     to such other agencies as it may request to assist it in the 
     conduct of its business any of the funds available to it for 
     administrative expenses  . . . After September 30, 1996, the 
     total amount of all allotments and fund transfers from the 
     Corporation under this section (including allotments and 
     transfers for automated data processing or information 
     resource management activities) for a fiscal year may not 
     exceed the total amount of the allotments and transfers made 
     under this section in fiscal year 1995.''

     (Emphasis added.) We note that the section 11 funding 
     limitation applies only to funds transferred by the CCC to 
     other agencies under the authority of section 11.
       The 2002 Farm Bill, which amended subsection (a) of section 
     3841, directs the Secretary to use CCC funds to carry out the 
     WRP and the FPP and five other conservation programs, 
     including the provision of technical assistance as part of 
     these programs. As amended, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841 provides, in 
     pertinent part, as follows:
       ``For each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Secretary 
     shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the following 
     programs under subtitle D (including the provision of 
     technical assistance):

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (2) The wetlands reserve program under subchapter C of 
     chapter 1.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (4) The farmland protection program under subchapter B of 
     chapter 2, using, to the maximum extent practicable--(A) 
     $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 * * *''

     16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841(a) (emphasis added). Section 3841 
     provides independent authority for the provision of technical 
     services to these programs.
       The 2002 Farm Bill also added a new subsection (b) to 
     section 3841. It is this provision that has generated the 
     current dilemma: ``Nothing in this section affects the limit 
     on expenditures for technical assistance imposed by section 
     11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714i).'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841(b). When read in the context of 
     section 11, section 3841(b) makes clear that the section 11 
     cap applies only to funds transferred under section 11. 
     Section 11 specifically imposes the cap on ``fund transfers . 
     . . under this section.'' Section 11 by its terms  clearly 
     does not apply to amounts transferred under other 
     authority, such as section 3841(a). And we read section 
     3841(b) to make plain that, while the section 11 cap 
     continues to apply to amounts transferred under section 
     11, it does not apply to amounts transferred by section 
     3841(a).
        Accordingly, reading the above provisions harmoniously, we 
     conclude that: (1) the section 11 cap by its own terms 
     applies only to CCC funds transferred to other agencies under 
     section 11; (2) 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841(a) provides independent 
     authority for the Secretary to fund the seven conservation 
     programs named in that section out of CCC funds; and (3) 16 
     U.S.C. Sec. 3841(b) makes it clear that, while the section 11 
     cap still applies to funds transferred by the CCC to other 
     government agencies for work performed pursuant to the 
     authority of section 11, the section 11 cap does not apply to 
     the seven conservation programs that are funded with CCC 
     funds under the authority of 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841(a).
        Our conclusion that the section 11 cap does not apply to 
     the seven conservation programs of section 3841(a) is 
     confirmed by a review of the legislative history of the 2002 
     Farm Bill, which shows that the Congress was attempting to 
     make clear that section 3841 technical assistance was not 
     affected by the section 11 cap. The legislative history to 
     the 2002 Farm bill unambiguously supports the view that the 
     Congress did not intend the section 11 cap to limit the 
     funding for technical assistance provided under the section 
     3841 conservation programs. In discussing the cap, the 
     Conference Committee stated: ``The Managers understand the 
     critical nature of providing adequate funding for technical 
     assistance. For that reason, technical assistance should come 
     from individual program funds.'' H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-424 
     at 497 (May 1, 2002) (emphasis added). In discussing 
     administration and funding of these conservation programs, 
     the Conference Committee further explained that:
        ``The Managers provide that funds for technical assistance 
     shall come directly from the mandatory money provided for 
     conservation programs under Subtitle D, (Section 2701).
        In order to ensure implementation, the Managers believe 
     that technical assistance must be an integral part of all 
     conservation programs authorized for mandatory funding. 
     Accordingly, the Managers have provided for the payment of 
     technical assistance from program accounts. The Managers 
     expect technical assistance for all conservation programs to 
     follow the model currently used for the EQIP whereby the 
     Secretary determines, on an annual basis, the amount of 
     funding for technical assistance. Furthermore, the Managers 
     intend that the funding will cover costs associated with 
     technical assistance, such as administrative and overhead 
     costs.''

     H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-424 at 498-499 (2002) (Emphasis 
     added).
        The ``EQIP model'' that the conferees referred to was 
     established in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-127, Subtitle E, 341, 110 Stat. 
     888, 1007 (1996) (1996 Farm Bill). For fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002, the Secretary was to use CCC funds to carry out 
     the CRP, WRP and the Environmental Quality Incentives 
     programs (EQIP). (Former 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841 (a)). More 
     specifically, the 1996 Farm bill authorized the Secretary to 
     use CCC funds for technical assistance (as well as cost-share 
     payments, incentive payments, and education) under the EQIP 
     program. 16 U.S.C. 3841(b). While the 1996 Farm Bill 
     authorized the use of CCC funds to carry out the CRP and WRP 
     programs, it did not specifically authorize the funding of 
     technical assistance out of program funds as it did for EQIP.
        Importantly, five days before enactment of the 2002 Farm 
     Bill when the Senate was considering the Conference Report on 
     the Farm Bill, a colloquy among Senators Harkin, Chairman, 
     Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Lugar, 
     its Ranking Republican Member, and Cochran, an Agriculture 
     Committee member, makes it unmistakably clear that the 
     section 11 cap was not meant to apply to the provision of 
     technical assistance with respect to any of the conservation 
     programs named in 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3841(a):
        ``Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy 
     with the distinguished Senators from Iowa and Mississippi. 
     Mr. President, the 1996 farm bill contained a provision which 
     led to serious disruption in the delivery of conservation 
     programs. Specifically, the 1996 act placed a cap on the 
     transfers of Commodity Credit Corporation funds to other 
     government entities. Is the distinguished Senator from Iowa 
     aware of the so-called ``section 11 cap?''
        Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Indiana for raising 
     this issue, because it is an important one. The Section 11 
     cap prohibited expenditures by the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation beyond the Fiscal Year 1995 level to reimburse 
     other government entities for services. Unfortunately, in 
     the 1996 farm bill, many conservation programs were 
     unintentionally caught under the section 11 cap. As a 
     result, during the past 6 years, conservation programs 
     have had serious shortfalls in technical assistance. There 
     was at least one stoppage of work on the Conservation 
     Reserve Program. The Appropriations Committees have had to 
     respond to the problem ad hoc by redirecting resources and 
     providing emergency spending to deal with the problem. 
     This has been a problem not just in my state of Iowa or in 
     your states of Indiana and Mississippi; it has been a 
     nationwide constraint on conservation.
       Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman for the clarification, 
     and I would inquire whether the legislation under 
     consideration here today will fix the problem of the section 
     11 cap for conservation programs.
       Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his 
     attention to this important issue. Section 2701 [16 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3841] of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 recognizes that technical assistance is an integral part 
     of each conservation program. Therefore, technical assistance 
     will be funded through the mandatory funding for each program 
     provided by the bill. As a result, for directly funded 
     programs, such as the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and 
     the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), funding 
     for technical assistance will come from the borrowing 
     authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and will no 
     longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act.
       For those programs such as the CRP, WRP, and the Grasslands 
     Reserve Program (GRP), which involve enrollment based on 
     acreage, the technical assistance funding will come from the 
     annual program outlays apportioned by OMB-again, from the 
     borrowing authority of the CCC. These programs, to will no 
     longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act. This 
     legislation will provide the level of funding necessary to 
     cover all technical assistance costs, including training; 
     equipment; travel; education, evaluation and assessment, and 
     whatever else is necessary to get the programs implemented.

[[Page S14133]]

       Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chairman for that clarification. 
     With the level of new resources and new workload that we are 
     requiring from the Department, and specifically the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, I hear concerns back in my 
     state that program delivery should not be disrupted, and the 
     gentleman has reassured me that it will not.''

     148 Cong. Rec. S3979, 4020 (daily ed. May 8, 2002) (emphasis 
     added).
       In our view, the Congress intended all funding for the 
     seven conservation programs authorized in section 3841 
     (Sec. 2701 of the 2002 Farm Bill), including funding for 
     technical assistance, to be mandatory funding drawn from 
     individual program funds, rather than from CCC's 
     administrative funds that are subject to the section 11 cap. 
     Accordingly, based on the language of 3841, we conclude that 
     the section 11 cap does not apply to funds for technical 
     assistance provided under the conservation programs 
     enumerated in section 3841.
     2. Availability of the Conservation Operations Appropriation
       The next issue is whether the Department of Agriculture's 
     Conservation Operations appropriation is available for 
     technical assistance for the WRP and the FPP. As noted above, 
     this issue arose when OMB advised Agriculture that its 
     Conservation Operations appropriation could be used to fund 
     this technical assistance. For the reasons that follow, we 
     conclude that Agriculture may not use its Conservation 
     Operations appropriation to fund the WRP and FPP.
       The fiscal year 2002 Appropriation for the Conservation 
     Operations account provides in pertinent part:


     natural resources conservation service conservation operations

       ``For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935, (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agriculture related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase . . . .''
       Pub. L. No. 107-76, 115 Stat. 704 at 717, 718 (2001). In 
     addition to its availability to carry out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 590a-f), the fiscal 
     year 2002 Conservation Operations appropriation is also 
     available to carry out a variety of other specified programs 
     such as those authorized by 7 U.S.C. Sec. 428a, 7 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2209b, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2250a, Sec. 202(c) of title II 
     of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 
     (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1592(c)): section 706(a) of the Organic 
     Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2225), for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. Sec. 3109 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 590e-2. OMB asserts 
     that the language of the Conservation Operations 
     appropriation and the Act of April 27, 1935 cited therein 
     are broad enough to encompass the technical assistance 
     that Agriculture will provide under the WRP, the FPP and 
     the other section 3841 conservation programs. Since the 
     technical services provided by Agriculture under the WRP 
     and the FPP (and other section 3841 conservation programs) 
     fall within the general purposes articulated in the fiscal 
     year 2002 Conservation Operations appropriation, OMB 
     considers the Conservation Operations appropriation as an 
     additional available source of funding for technical 
     assistance provided as part of the section 3841 
     conservation programs. In other words, the Conservation 
     Operations appropriation is available to continue 
     financing for the FPP and the WRP, when, in OMB's view, 
     the section 11 cap limits the availability of CCC funds 
     for those programs. We do not agree.
       First, the Conservation Operations appropriation identifies 
     specific programs that it is available to fund, including the 
     authority to carry out the provisions of the Act of April 27, 
     1935 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 590a-f) cited by OMB above. However, 
     none of the specific statutory programs identified in the 
     Conservation Operations appropriation include the FPP or the 
     WRP found in 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3838h-3838i and 3837-3737f, 
     respectively. The FPP and the WRP were authorized by Title 
     XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, and the 
     provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 are not among the 
     statute listed in the Conservation Operations appropriation 
     as an object of that appropriation. Thus, the Conservation 
     Operations appropriation by its own terms does not finance 
     Agriculture programs and activities under the Food Security 
     Act.\67\
       Second, even if the language of the Conservation Operations 
     appropriation could reasonably be read to include the WRP and 
     the FPP, section 3841, as amended by the 2002 Farm Bill, very 
     specifically requires that funding for technical assistance 
     will come from the ``funds, facilities, and authorities'' of 
     the CCC. Indeed, the statute is unequivocal--the Secretary 
     ``shall use the funds'' of the CCC to carry out the seven 
     conservation programs, including associated technical 
     assistance. It is well settled that even an expenditure that 
     may be reasonably related to a general appropriation may not 
     be paid out of that appropriation where the expenditure falls 
     specifically within the scope of another appropriation. 63 
     Comp. Gen. 433, 427-428, 432 (1984); B-290005, July 1, 
     2002.\8\
       Third, this view is supported by the Senate colloquy on the 
     2002 Farm Bill Conference report:
       ``Mr. COCHRAN. It is then my understanding that, under the 
     provisions of this bill, the technical assistance necessary 
     to implement the conservation programs will not come at the 
     expense of the good work already going on in the countryside 
     in conservation planning, assistance to grazing lands, and 
     other activities supported within the NRCS conservation 
     operations account. And, further, this action will relieve 
     the appropriators of an often reoccurring problems.
       Mr. HARKIN. Both gentlemen are correct. The programs 
     directly funded by the CCC-EQIP, FPP, WHIP, and the CSP--as 
     well as the acreage programs--CRP, WRP, and the GRP--include 
     funding for technical assistance that comes out of the 
     program funds. And this mandatory funding in no way affects 
     the ongoing work of the NRCS Conservation Operations 
     Program.''

     148 Cong. Rec. S3979, 4020 (daily ed. May 8, 2002) (emphasis 
     added).
       This colloquy underscores the understanding that the 2002 
     Farm Bill specifically requires that funding for technical 
     assistance will come from the borrowing authority of the CCC 
     and will not interfere with other activities supported by the 
     Conservation Operations appropriation.
       Furthermore, before passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, which 
     made a number of conservation programs, including the WRP, 
     mandatory spending programs, the WRP received a separate 
     appropriation for that purpose. In other words, before the 
     1996 farm bill provided CCC funding to run the program, the 
     WRP was not funded out of the Conservation Operations 
     appropriation. Pub. L. No. 103-330, 108 Stat. 2453 (1994); 
     Pub. L. No. 102-142, 105 Stat. 897 (1991). Moreover, 
     Agriculture has previously concluded that the Conservation 
     Operations appropriation is not available to fund 
     technical assistance with respect to programs authorized 
     under provisions of the Food Security Act. Their reasoning 
     tracks ours--the provisions of the Food Security Act are 
     not among the statutes cited in the Conservation 
     Operations appropriation. Memorandum from Stuart Shelton, 
     Natural Resources Division to Larry E. Clark, Deputy Chief 
     for Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service and 
     P. Dwight Holman, Deputy Chief for Management, Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, October 7, 1998 
     (Conservation Operations appropriation is not available to 
     fund technical assistance for the Conservation Research 
     Program); GAO/RCED-99-247R, Conservation Reserve Program 
     Technical Assistance, at 9 (Aug. 5, 1999).
       Thus, the Conservation Operations appropriation is not an 
     available funding source for WRP and FPP operations and 
     associated technical assistance. To the extent that 
     Agriculture might have used the Conservation Operations 
     appropriation for WRP, Agriculture would need to adjust its 
     accounts accordingly, deobligating amounts it had charged to 
     the Conservation Operations appropriation and charging those 
     amounts to the CCC funds. We note that in this event OMB 
     would need to apportion additional amounts from CCC funds to 
     cover such obligations.
     3. Impoundment Control Act
       The last question is whether OMB's July 18, 2002, decision 
     not to apportion funds for technical assistance for the WRP 
     and the FPP constitutes an impoundment under the Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974. Based upon the most recent information 
     provided by OMB, to the extent OMB did not initially 
     apportion funds for the FPP or the WRP, the deal was 
     programmatic and did not constitute an impoundment of funds. 
     Also, based on information recently provided by OMB, no 
     impoundment of funds is occurring with respect to the FPP or 
     the WRP.
       We generally define an impoundment as any action or 
     inaction by the President, the Director of OMB or any federal 
     agency that delays the obligation or expenditure of budget 
     authority provided in law. Glossary of Terms Used in the 
     Federal Budget Process, Exposure Draft, GAO/AFMD-2.1.1, Page 
     52 (1993). However, our decisions distinguish between 
     programmatic withholdings outside the reach of the 
     Impoundment Control Act and withholdings of budget authority 
     that qualify as impoundments subject to the Act's 
     requirements. B-290659, July 24, 2002. Sometimes delays are 
     due to legitimate program reasons. Programmatic delays 
     typically occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to 
     implement a program even if funds temporarily go unobligated. 
     Id. Such delays do not constitute impoundments, and do not 
     require the sending of a special message to the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 684(a). 
     Id.
       Here, OMB initially did not apportion funds for WRP and FPP 
     technical assistance because it believed the section 11 cap 
     was applicable and would be exceeded. OMB's General Counsel 
     states that OMB reserved apportioning budget authority to 
     discuss its funding concerns with Agriculture. These funding 
     concerns generated a ``vigorous and healthy internal legal 
     discussion'' between the Department of Agriculture and OMB. 
     Letter from Nancy Bryson, General Counsel, Department of 
     Agriculture to the Honorable Tom Harkin, Chairman, Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, September 
     24, 2002. Since OMB delayed apportionment of technical 
     assistance funds because of uncertainty concerning the 
     applicability of statutory restrictions and since

[[Page S14134]]

     OMB approved Agriculture's subsequent apportionment requests, 
     we conclude that OMB did not impound funds under the 
     Impoundment Control Act. See B-290659, July 24, 2002 (delay 
     in obligating funds because of uncertainty whether statutory 
     conditions were met did not constitute an impoundment).
       As noted above, according to OMB, Agriculture recently 
     submitted revised apportionment requests for technical 
     assistance for both the FPP and the WRP, and OMB has approved 
     the revised apportionments. For the FPP, Agriculture 
     requested an additional apportionment for financial 
     assistance of $2 million, bringing the total amount available 
     for obligation to $50 million. Thus, the entire $50 million 
     in FPP funds authorized by section 3841 have been 
     apportioned. Since OMB advises that it has apportioned the 
     full funding amount and that is available for obligation, 
     these funds were not impounded for the FPP.
       As for the WRP funding, as noted above, on June 19, 2002, 
     Agriculture asked OMB to apportion a total of $20,655,000 for 
     WRP technical assistance. OMB did not apportion this amount. 
     SF 132, Apportionment and Reapportionment Schedule for Farms 
     Security and Rural Investment Programs, Account No. 1221004, 
     July 18, 2002. On August 30, 2002, Agriculture requested an 
     apportionment of WRP (and CRP) technical assistance for 
     totaling $5,950,000. SF 132, Apportionment and 
     Reapportionment Schedule for Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Reimbursable Agreements and Transfers to State and Federal 
     Agencies, Account No. 12X4336. On September 3, 2002, OMB 
     approved this request and apportioned $5,950,00. Id. Since 
     OMB apportioned the budget authority for the WRP and it was 
     made available for obligation, there was no impoundment of 
     funds in fiscal year 2002.
       While the present record does not establish an impoundment 
     of the fiscal year 2002 funds appropriated for the WRP and 
     the FPP, we will continue to monitor this situation to ensure 
     that any impoundment that might occur in fiscal year 2003 for 
     conservation programs is timely reported.
       We hope you find this information useful. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Susan Poling, Managing Associate 
     General Counsel, or Thomas Armstrong, Assistant General 
     Counsel, at 202-512-5644. We are sending copies of this 
     letter to the Secretary of Agriculture, Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the Chairmen and Ranking 
     Minority Members of the House and Senate Agriculture 
     Committees and other interested Congressional committees. 
     This letter will also be available on GAO's home page at 
     http//www.gao.gov.
 Anthony H. Gamboa,
                                                  General Counsel.
  Mr. LEAHY. This bipartisan amendment simply overrides the USDA 
decision and prevents funds from the Working Lands Incentive Programs 
such as EQIP, FRPP, GRP, and WHIP from being diverted. We are simply 
saying USDA should follow the law as any other Department has to follow 
the law.
  I have been in the Senate a long time. I have been a member of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee for nearly 30 years. I am a former 
chairman of that committee. I have long been an advocate for the CRP 
program. Some of my colleagues may be concerned how this impacts CRP.
  I assure everyone the amendment is a first step toward solving the 
dilemma the administration put us in by ignoring the 2002 farm bill. We 
need to solve the problem this year. Supporting the amendment assures 
it will be raised during conference.
  We cannot allow this or any other administration, but especially one 
that has demonstrated total disregard for the environment, to pick 
winners and losers among the conservation programs. If we do not 
address this, we will continue to rob Peter to pay Paul and it defies 
the direct will of the Congress--again, the direct will in an agreement 
that was negotiated between Republicans, Democrats, House, Senate, and 
the administration. We have tried to hold our end of the deal. The 
administration has not.

  We provided $6.5 billion for working lands programs in the 2002 farm 
bill. We want farmers to manage working lands to produce our food and 
fiber but also to enhance water quality and to enhance wildlife 
habitat. We are trying to put together a win-win situation: We enhance 
our water, improve wildlife habitat, and we still raise our food and 
fiber.
  For example, EQIP helps share the cost of a whole lot of land 
management practices that help the environment, including more 
efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, and greater use of 
innovative technologies to handle animal waste. It gives farmers the 
tools they need.
  Every farmer and rancher I have heard from wants the money there. 
Every farmer and rancher I have heard from says: How come we are not 
following what the law requires?
  If we continue to divert money, we are going to see programs such as 
EQIP, WHIP, and FRPP continue to face significant backlogs.
  Let me show you this chart. This gives you an example of the unfunded 
applications.
  In fiscal year 2002, USDA reported a $500 million backlog in the 
State of Texas, as I look at this chart. The national total is almost 
$1.5 billion--$1,486,000,944. There is a $17 million backlog in 
Arkansas, a $20 million backlog in California, a $36 million backlog in 
Florida, a $66 million backlog in Kansas, a $200 million backlog in 
Missouri, a $106 million backlog in Nebraska and, as I said, a $500 
million backlog in Texas.
  My little State of Vermont has a $7 million backlog. But look how 
much bigger it is in the rest of these States. So we have to go back. 
We know 70 percent of the American landscape is private land. We know 
farming dramatically affects the health of America's rivers, lakes, and 
bays. We have to go back to what we agreed when we passed the farm 
bill.
  When farmers and ranchers take steps to improve air and water quality 
or assist rare species, they face new costs, new risks, or a loss of 
income. These conservation programs help share these costs, underwrite 
these risks, or offset these losses of income.
  It helps our farmers and ranchers. They want it. They thought we 
agreed on it. We thought we had agreed on it. We should go back to what 
we agreed to.
  My amendment, a bipartisan amendment, does that. It tells the 
administration to honor the 2002 farm bill by fully funding working 
lands conservation programs. The failure to adequately fund these 
working lands conservation programs is having a dramatic impact on both 
farmers and the farm economy.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the senior Senator from 
Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I submit into the Record a 
statement regarding my position on an amendment offered by Senators 
Leahy and Snowe to the agriculture appropriations bill. Their 
bipartisan amendment was aimed at preventing the USDA from using funds 
from working lands incentive programs to pay for the technical 
assistance costs of the Conservation Reserve Program. Although I 
supported the amendment from Senators Leahy and Snowe, I believe it 
underscores the urgent need to prioritize conservation funding and 
ensure that all conservation programs authorized in the 2002 farm bill, 
from the Grassland Reserve Program to the Conservation Reserve Program, 
receive full funding. Robbing one important program to pay for another 
does not help us achieve our collective goal of improving conservation 
on farmlands and in rural communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the intent of the amendment 
my colleague from Vermont is offering. It is an attempt to ensure USDA 
will carry out mandatory conservation programs as Congress intended in 
the farm bill, as he has explained.
  However, the effect of the Leahy amendment would be to freeze the 
largest conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program, until a 
permanent fix for the problem the Senator has outlined has been found.
  I am not a member of the authorizing committee, but I am told by many 
who are this was not the intent of Congress, that they are not anxious 
to have the Conservation Reserve Program frozen for any reason, for any 
purpose, so the Leahy amendment is opposed by many members of the 
authorizing committee, including its chairman, Senator Cochran.
  I asked Senator Cochran if he would be interested in speaking on this 
amendment, and he smiled and very graciously delegated that 
responsibility to me. I am grateful for the confidence, but I feel less 
equipped perhaps than the chairman himself might be.

[[Page S14135]]

  Nonetheless, the effect of the Leahy amendment would mean money would 
flow out of EQIP, WHIP, FRPP, and other programs to pay for the 
technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve Program. Many members of 
the authorizing committee, along with conservation groups and farm 
groups, agree there is a problem, but not that there is a consensus as 
to how to solve the problem.
  The Senator from Vermont has offered one proposal. But as yet, within 
the authorizing committee, there is not a great deal of support for 
that proposal that I am aware of.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. During the debate on the farm bill, there was a colloquy. 
The distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, asked 
the then-chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee ``whether the 
legislation under consideration here today will fix the problem of the 
section 11 cap for conservation programs.''
  The Senator from Iowa responded it would, and he said:

       As a result, for directly funded programs, such as the 
     Conservation Security Program and the Environmental Quality 
     Incentives Program, funding for technical assistance will 
     come from the borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation. . . .
       For programs such as the CRP, WRP, and the Grasslands 
     Reserve Program . . . funding will come from the annual 
     program outlays . . . from the borrowing authority of the 
     CCC.

  This was all carefully worked out. This GAO report shows it was the 
intent of Congress to do it the way we are funding. Unfortunately, 
there are those at the Department of Agriculture who will admit that 
privately but will not admit it publicly.
  We are just trying to put the money back where it was. We are not 
trying to rob any of the others. I am saying they should get the money 
it was said they would get.
  As we showed, in Texas alone, we have a $500 million deficit they 
assumed had been promised to them. But now, because the reallocation is 
not going there, hunters, those who fish, farmers, ranchers--they all 
agree they ought to get the money they asked for. They are good 
stewards of their land, but a lot of the applications to make sure they 
are good stewards of the land came about because we promised them the 
money, and now we are pulling it back. That is my concern. The GAO 
study makes it very clear it was intended this way.
  I thank the Senator for yielding to me to point that out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am not arguing, and I do not know 
anyone who is arguing, that we do not have a problem, nor am I arguing 
the Congress ought to ignore it or put it off. However, I do believe it 
is a fix that ought to be crafted in the Senate authorizing committee, 
the committee which the Senator from Vermont chaired at one point, the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The chairman of that 
committee has also expressed his opposition to this amendment.
  Because I am not a member of the committee, I am not equipped to get 
into all of the details pro and con, other than to stand here as a 
surrogate for the chairman and say I believe this belongs in the 
authorizing committee and not on this appropriations bill. For that 
reason, I intend to vote against it. I understand a large number of 
members of the Agriculture Committee also intend to vote against it.
  I do not have an argument, as I say, with the substance of the 
problem. The Senator from Vermont is correct when he talks about the 
fact that we have a problem or the problem needs to be addressed. I am 
simply opposing the amendment on the grounds this is not the vehicle 
with which to do it, and the particular approach he has adopted does 
not enjoy a consensus that would justify us going forward at this 
particular time.
  I would hope he would be able to craft a solution that would enjoy 
that kind of consensus, and that we could return to this issue as a 
Senate and get it resolved at some point in the future.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Utah has 
said. He is a dear friend of mine. I try to emulate him so much, I even 
go to the same barber as he does. But in his State, Utah, they are 
$4.753 million behind what they thought they had been promised.
  I couldn't agree more. I have been on the Appropriations Committee 
for more than a quarter of a century. I don't like to see problems 
fixed in the Appropriations Committee that could have been fixed in the 
authorizing committee. But we did fix it in the authorizing committee. 
We did put in a GAO study. A colloquy between Senator Cochran and 
Senator Harkin and others makes it very clear we fixed it there. It is 
USDA that is not following the law.
  That is why Texas is behind $500 million in this area, Nebraska is 
behind $106 million, and Missouri is behind $200 million. I will just 
read some of these figures. I hope people understand this is not an 
attack on the CRP program. I support CRP. I voted many times for the 
CRP in 29 years. What this amendment does is prevent the administration 
from raiding other conservation programs. Unfortunately, the 
administration pits conservation programs against one another. What 
they should do is take it out of the CCC account, as we said in the 
law.
  But I hope when Senators vote, they realize, if they are from 
Arizona, they have $30 million in their State's EQIP unfunded 
application. If you are from Arizona, you have $30 million that your 
farmers are looking for. If you are from Alabama, you have $10 million 
they are looking for. If you are from Colorado, you have $36 million 
you are looking for; Florida, $36 million; if you are from Iowa, you 
have $30 million you are looking for but have not received. If you are 
from Kansas, you have backlogs of $66 million; Louisiana, $11 million; 
Missouri, $200 million; Nebraska, $106 million; Montana, $52 million; 
Oklahoma, nearly $25 million; Tennessee, $21 million; West Virginia, 
$15 million.
  Obviously, every Senator can vote any way he or she wants, but I 
don't know, if I were from a State that had a backlog of $10 million, 
as Alabama does, or $30 million, as Arizona does, or $17 million, as 
Arkansas does, or $35 million, as Colorado does, or $36 million, as 
Florida does, or $30 million, as Iowa does, or $66 million, as Kansas 
does, or $12 million, as Louisiana does, or $200 million, as Missouri 
does, or $51 million, as Montana does, $106 million, as Nebraska does, 
$500 million, as Texas does, or $25 million, as Oklahoma does, or $8 
million, as Pennsylvania does, I think I might want to vote for this 
and not go back and tell my State, ``Sorry.''
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the fiscal year 2002 
EQIP unfunded applications that we now face.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   FY-2002 EQIP UNFUNDED APPLICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State                           FY-2002 Backlog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................         $10,244,510
Alaska..............................................           4,164,056
Arizona.............................................          30,581,190
Arkansas............................................          17,689,860
California..........................................          19,911,881
Colorado............................................          35,966,766
Connecticut.........................................           7,135,488
Delaware............................................           2,618,440
Florida.............................................          36,467,046
Georgia.............................................          14,021,176
Hawaii..............................................           2,327,794
Idaho...............................................           9,064,742
Illinois............................................          16,836,480
Indiana.............................................           4,733,120
Iowa................................................          29,066,020
Kansas..............................................          66,157,013
Kentucky............................................           4,080,336
Louisiana...........................................          11,786,034
Maine...............................................           6,167,328
Maryland............................................           2,524,905
Massachusetts.......................................           2,008,260
Michigan............................................           6,839,033
Minnesota...........................................          13,581,380
Mississippi.........................................          10,331,727
Missouri............................................         200,343,682
Montana.............................................          51,678,240
Nebraska............................................         106,772,528
Nevada..............................................           1,366,340
New Hampshire.......................................           2,363,200
New Jersey..........................................          15,879,913
New Mexico..........................................          30,194,736
New York............................................          13,321,362
North Carolina......................................           8,192,823
North Dakota........................................          10,774,308
Ohio................................................          14,921,919
Oklahoma............................................          24,688,762
Oregon..............................................          15,827,422
Pacific Basin.......................................              34,185
Pennsylvania........................................           8,316,990
Puerto Rico.........................................             740,709
Rhode Island........................................             551,043
South Carolina......................................          15,288,390
South Dakota........................................          14,666,850
Tennessee...........................................          21,413,600
Texas...............................................         502,051,618
Utah................................................           4,753,280
Vermont.............................................           7,960,070
Virginia............................................           6,236,576
Washington..........................................           6,365,088
West Virginia.......................................          14,915,086
Wisconsin...........................................           8,334,480
Wyoming.............................................          14,686,650
                                                     -------------------
  Total.............................................      1,486,944,435.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah is back. If he would

[[Page S14136]]

like, I would be prepared to yield back all time. I do ask for the yeas 
and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be and there is.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. One thing I want to bring to the attention of the Senate 
now: In today's Congress Daily PM--meaning the afternoon edition--the 
second paragraph communicates:

       Democrats block consideration late Wednesday of fiscal year 
     2004 military construction conference report.

  I want the record to be spread that that simply is not true. Whoever 
gave this reporter this information was either trying to mislead the 
reporter or simply didn't know what they were talking about. There was 
never any effort made last night to move the military construction bill 
in any way. We are ready to move this at any time. We believe the 
conference reports which have been completed--Military Construction, 
Energy and Water; those are the two I know of--should be completed 
immediately.
  I want everyone to understand, not last night nor any other time have 
we ever blocked consideration of the fiscal year 2004 Military 
Construction appropriations conference report. In fact, not only did we 
not block it, no one asked us to participate in anything dealing with 
that conference report. I wish they had. I hope maybe tonight we can do 
something about this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are currently drawing up a unanimous 
consent request that would lock down the time. Does the Senator from 
Vermont yield back the remainder of his time?
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator from Utah intends to, yes, I will.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Utah is willing to yield back the 
remainder of the time in opposition to the Senator's amendment. We have 
an amendment that will be offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania on 
which it is my intention to have a voice vote and accept. We are 
getting the exact language, but it is my intention that the Senator 
from Pennsylvania be given 15 minutes.
  I would ask if Senator Harkin is still planning to come over to take 
his 15 minutes of debate on the Daschle amendment. If he is, that would 
mean we could vote on the Leahy amendment and the Daschle amendment and 
then on final passage around 5:30.
  Mr. REID. If I could say to my friend, Senator Harkin originally 
wanted to take 15 minutes on the Daschle amendment. But now what he 
would like to do is take 5 minutes on the Leahy amendment and 5 minutes 
on the Daschle amendment. So we actually save 5 minutes in the process. 
I hope that we can agree at this stage that Senator Harkin be 
recognized to speak for 5 minutes on the Leahy amendment and 5 minutes 
on the Daschle amendment. It is my understanding Senator Daschle wishes 
to speak prior to the vote on his amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding that he does as well. We are 
working all of that out.
  Mr. REID. He wanted 10 minutes on that.
  Mr. BENNETT. We will work that out in a way that will protect every 
Senator's rights. But to move us along now, time having been yielded 
back on the Leahy amendment, I would ask that the Chair recognize the 
Senator from Pennsylvania for 15 minutes to lay down his amendment. 
During that 15-minute period, we will codify all of these various 
agreements and bring that unanimous consent request forward.
  Mr. REID. It seems we should get this tied down very quickly. I don't 
see why we can't do that.
  Mr. BENNETT. It is my intention.
  Mr. REID. Why don't we do it right now. It is my understanding we are 
going to vote on Daschle, Leahy, and final passage; is that correct?
  Mr. BENNETT. It was my intention to vote on Leahy first.
  Mr. REID. Leahy, Daschle, and then you have some amendments you need 
to clear.
  Mr. BENNETT. Then I have some perfecting amendments and then final 
passage.
  Mr. REID. I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be 
recognized to speak for 15 minutes on his amendment and that that be 
determined by a voice vote, as approved by the two managers; that 
following that, Senator Harkin be recognized to speak for 5 minutes for 
the Leahy amendment and 5 minutes for Senator Daschle's amendment, and 
Senator Daschle be recognized for 10 minutes; and following that, there 
be votes on or in relation to both amendments, Leahy being first; and 
that there be no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator has summarized the situation very well, as 
he always does. I hope the Senate will agree to that unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I was 
trying to hear that. I ask for at least 10 minutes on the Leahy 
amendment and 10 minutes on the Daschle amendment. I may not take it 
all.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I so modify my request to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask a further modification: That I be 
given an additional 5 minutes, if necessary, for a response.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, further, following the cleared amendments, 
all Members can be ready for a vote on final passage because I also ask 
unanimous consent that there be no further amendments in order other 
than those mentioned, including the amendments cleared by the two 
managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2080

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now 
consider my amendment No. 2080, which is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this amendment provides that none of 
the funds made available by this act may be used to pay the salaries or 
expenses of employees of the Department of Agriculture to allocate the 
rate of price support in a manner that does not support the price of 
milk in accordance with section 1501(b) of the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002.
  That bill provides, in unequivocal terms, that the price of milk 
shall be supported at the rate equal to $9.90 per hundredweight for 
milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat.
  On July 8, 20 Senators wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture calling 
on the Secretary to observe the law with respect to that pricing. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 2003.
     Hon. Ann Veneman,
     Secretary of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Veneman: We are writing in support of the 
     National Milk Producer Federation's request for immediate 
     action concerning the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, 
     purchase prices for dairy products. Since the current prices 
     reflect only those costs incurred for commercial sales, the 
     market price for individual products has fallen below support 
     levels, thus allowing the price of milk used to produce them 
     to fall below the statutory support level for milk of $9.90 
     per hundredweight. Accordingly, it is imperative that action 
     be taken to adjust the support program purchase price levels 
     for cheese, butter and nonfat dry milk to reflect the 
     significant additional costs manufacturers face when selling 
     products to CCC.
       Class III milk prices have fallen below the milk price 
     support level, and cheese prices have fallen below their 
     respective CCC purchase price levels, because the CCC dairy 
     commodity purchase prices do not compensate for the 
     significant additional costs manufacturers face when they 
     sell products to the CCC. As a result, manufacturers often 
     sell dairy commodities to commercial customers at prices well 
     below the CCC support purchase prices. During the months for 
     which the Class III prices have fallen below support, market 
     prices for cheddar block and barrel cheese have been several 
     cents below their respective support purchase prices.

[[Page S14137]]

       Without question, our dairy farmers are suffering and need 
     our help. Congress has done its part through enactment of the 
     Farm Bill. It is now time for your Department to follow 
     through and ensure that the price support program operates as 
     we intended. The adjustments outlined above can move us a 
     long way toward accomplishing this vital goal.
       Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We 
     look forward to a timely response.
           Sincerely,
         Arlen Spector; Jack Reed; Barbara A. Mikulski; Max 
           Baucus; Russel D. Feingold; Paul Sarbanes; Frank 
           Lautenberg; Jim Jeffords; Patty Murray; Ted Kennedy; 
           Patrick Leahy;
         Charles Schumer; Mark Dayton; Tim Johnson; Susan Collins; 
           Olympia Snowe; Joe Biden; John F. Kerry; Hillary Rodman 
           Clinton; Herb Kohl; Norman Coleman.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I was lead signatory of the letter. No 
Senator had received a reply, until today, when we were given a copy of 
a letter dated August 13, 2003--that is a date stamp, not the date of 
the letter, which purports to respond to that letter.
  In effect, the letter from J.B. Penn, Under Secretary, Farm and 
Foreign Agriculture Services, concedes that the law was not being 
followed. The relevant portion reads, in part:

       [W]e appreciate your concern that many dairy sector 
     representatives believe that cheese manufacturers are 
     reluctant to sell to CCC, which, in turn, causes monthly 
     Class III milk prices (milk use for cheese) to fall below the 
     $9.90 per hundredweight price support level.

  Omitting some language not directly relevant, the concluding sentence 
of the paragraph is:

       The perception is that these additional requirements and 
     the requisite costs lead to the reluctance.

  I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     United States


                                    Department of Agriculture,

                                  Washington, DC, August 13, 2003.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: On behalf of Secretary Veneman, thank 
     you for your letter of July 8, 2003, jointly signed by your 
     colleagues, regarding the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 
     dairy product purchase prices.
       We appreciate your concern that many dairy sector 
     representatives believe that cheese manufacturers are 
     reluctant to sell to CCC, which, in turn, causes monthly 
     Class III milk prices (milk used for cheese) to fall below 
     the $9.90 per hundredweight price support level. As you know, 
     CCC has requirements in addition to those of commercial 
     sales, primarily for packaging materials, additional storage, 
     additional financing, and Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     grading. The perception is that these additional requirements 
     and requisite costs lead to the reluctance.
       Cheese prices have increased in recent weeks to $1.59 per 
     pound. This is 46 cents per pound above the CCC purchase 
     price and will result in a July Class III milk price above 
     $9.90. Cheese prices have increased because May and June milk 
     production was below a year ago, and there is concern in the 
     market that cheese stocks are inadequate.
       We concur that there are extra costs to sell cheese to CCC 
     when compared to the commercial market. However, the fact is, 
     even under current conditions and prices, CCC purchased an 
     average of 1.4 million pounds of cheese per week in January 
     through June. To address industry's concerns, USDA officials 
     have met with representatives of the National Milk Producers 
     Federation and the International Dairy Food Association to 
     discuss the issue. USDA continues to evaluate the situation 
     to determine if any action is required under USDA's milk 
     price support program. Your comments will be taken into 
     consideration as we consider these choices.
       Again, thank you for your letter. A similar letter is being 
     sent to your colleagues.
           Sincerely,
                                                        J.B. Penn,
          Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the consequence has been that the class 
III price of milk used to make cheese has been below the $9.90 support 
price 17 times since January 2000 and has been as low as $8.57 in 
November 2000 and $9.11 in February 2003.
  The Secretary might make an argument that the average price isn't at 
$9.90, but factually that argument could not be made. What we are doing 
essentially is asking the Secretary of Agriculture to observe the law. 
It doesn't seem to me that that is too much to ask. We are not trying 
to rewrite the substantive law on milk pricing because it was enacted 
in 2002. But we are utilizing this appropriations bill to require that 
the Secretary observe the law, with the interdiction that she cannot 
spend any money under this bill unless she does observe the law with 
respect to this milk price.
  We have had a considerable discussion back and forth as to whether 
the amendment would be accepted. I am prepared to vote on it, but I 
don't want to burden the record with a vote. I say to the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee of the distinguished Appropriations 
Committee, where I have served with the Senator from Utah for the past 
13 years, in the absence of a recorded vote, which I think would be 
overwhelming, I am prepared to accept a voice vote. But I would like 
assurances that the manager will fight to keep this in conference.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I will respond to the Senator by 
telling him I am in favor of his amendment and will carry that attitude 
into conference and do the best I can to see to it that it survives.
  Mr. SPECTER. This may be risky, but I direct the same question to the 
distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Wisconsin, my 
longstanding friend, Mr. Kohl.
  Mr. KOHL. I feel as does Senator Bennett. I will do my best to see 
that it stays in conference.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is very assuring. I am delighted to proceed, as I 
have discussed with the managers, to have a voice vote and have the 
amendment in effect accepted, if that is still agreeable to the 
distinguished Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I believe that, 
in the interest of time, a voice vote would be sufficient. I think we 
should have a voice vote rather than just accept the amendment by 
unanimous consent, so that the record does show that a formal vote took 
place.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2080) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the Chair and the Senator from 
Utah and the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand I am allowed 10 minutes to speak on the 
Leahy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, first, I commend the Senator from 
Vermont for raising the issue of funding for technical assistance for 
farm bill conservation programs. The technical assistance, as provided 
by the staff of the Natural Resource Conservation Service and other 
qualified providers such as engineers or agronomists, includes 
planning, designing, construction and implementation of conservation 
practices on agricultural land--this assistance is essential to allow 
farmers, ranchers, and landowners to carry out conservation practices.
  This amendment, as I understand it, would cut off funding for 
technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program. For that 
reason, I cannot support the amendment.
  Cutting off technical assistance would effectively preclude new 
enrollments in the CRP program, including the continuous CRP and the 
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, otherwise known as CREP, thus 
hurting the environment, wildlife, and land owners.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator yield on that point just 
for 20 seconds?
  Mr. HARKIN. I only have 10 minutes. I will have to ask for more time 
if I can.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wanted to point out this amendment doesn't take it out 
of the CRP. As the Senator knows--he serves on the Agriculture 
Committee--I have been a strong supporter of CRP straight through. It 
is just that the original farm bill took it out of CCC.
  What is happening now is the administration is playing one off 
against the

[[Page S14138]]

other with these various conservation programs instead of going to CCC 
like they are supposed to. All my amendment says is not to take it out 
of CRP--I am a strong supporter of CRP--but allow the Farm Bill to 
stand and take it out of CCC as they were supposed to in the first 
place.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the explanation of the Senator from Vermont. 
As I understand it, I ask the Senator from Vermont, does this not 
prevent the transfer of money from donor programs?
  Mr. LEAHY. This amendment simply follows the farm bill, and the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa was the chairman of that conference for 
the Senate. It was the farm bill on which we agreed.
  Mr. HARKIN. I could be wrong. I want to understand, if I can make a 
few more comments, and let the Senator from Vermont see if this is a 
correct interpretation. Prior to the passage of the farm bill in 2002, 
there was a shortage of technical assistance funding because the 1996 
farm bill limited technical assistance funding to that amount available 
under section 11 of the CCC. That was $56 million a year. This became 
known as the section 11 cap.
  The 2002 farm bill corrected this problem by providing an alternative 
source for technical assistance funds. What we did was we included a 
provision in the conservation title of the farm bill that technical 
assistance funding would come directly from the funds provided for each 
conservation program.
  This approach was not novel or untested. Congress relied on similar 
language in the 1996 farm bill providing funding for technical 
assistance for the EQIP program, the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program, directly from EQIP funds and outside the section 11 cap. We 
adopted this approach for all environmental programs to ensure there 
would be adequate funding for technical assistance. We all agreed on 
that approach. That is in the 2002 farm bill.
  Soon after the passage of the farm bill, we got a big shock from the 
Bush administration because they announced that the section 11 cap 
still applied, despite the language we had put in the farm bill.
  Despite the opinion of Nancy Bryson, General Counsel at USDA, and 
despite the opinion of the GAO, the General Accounting Office, that the 
2002 farm bill provided new authority for funding technical assistance, 
not subject to the section 11 cap, the White House, through OMB and 
then the Department of Justice, decided that the farm bill's 
conservation program funds could not be used for technical assistance 
because they were limited to the section 11 cap, thereby, largely 
blocking implementation of the conservation programs.
  We attempted to fix this in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus 
appropriations bill. As a result, funds from the dollar-limited 
conservation programs are now used to pay for technical assistance for 
all the conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve 
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, which are acreage limited 
programs.
  Senator Leahy, I believe, is correct that we now have a situation in 
which money that the farm bill provided for some conservation programs 
is being diverted to pay for technical assistance for others. Because 
of this problem, there is less conservation money going to producers 
and landowners than was intended or provided in the farm bill.

  In fiscal year 2003, almost $91 million in conservation funds were 
lost because that amount of money was taken from some programs and used 
to provide technical assistance for other programs. If the White House 
had implemented the farm bill as intended and as we got the opinion 
from the general counsel at USDA, this would not have happened.
  However, two wrongs don't make a right, and my problem, as I 
understand it, with the Leahy amendment--and I stand to be corrected by 
the author of the amendment--is that what would happen under this 
amendment is it would effectively mean that under the Conservation 
Reserve Program, we would not be able to enroll any new land. We would 
not be able to continue the continuous sign-up in the CRP program. We 
would not be able to continue the agreements we have in the CREP, the 
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.
  That is why, as I understand the Senator's amendment, it says that 
the donor programs are not available for technical assistance funds for 
CRP, but doesn't provide an alternative source.
  I ask the Senator from Vermont, does his amendment take away the 
section 11 cap? If we do away with the section 11 cap unequivocally and 
we go back to what we provided in the 2002 farm bill, then maybe the 
Senator's amendment is fine. That is not the way I read it.
  I yield to the Senator to correct me if I am wrong.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator who helped put together that 
farm bill knows the farm bill itself took away the section 11 caps. My 
amendment in no way takes money from CRP or anything else. It simply 
builds a firewall around EQIP, FRPP, GRP and WHIP, which is what we all 
agreed to at the time when the chairmen of the House and Senate 
Agriculture Committees and others were trying to make sure they had 
votes to pass the farm bill. These programs were essential to get the 
support from the East where most of the tax dollars come to pay for 
this farm bill.
  This amendment does not take from CRP. We are simply telling USDA to 
take it from the CCC. It tells the USDA to go back to the farm bill, 
which spoke of taking this money from the CCC. It just builds a 
firewall. That is all; nothing more, nothing less. The reason I care 
this much about it is that it was pointed out during the farm bill 
debate that the bulk of the money was going to the Midwest, yet the tax 
dollars were coming from much more populous States, mostly through the 
Northeast, to pay for it. Almost all the money was going to the Midwest 
and other farm areas, but this is the one area that we got anything.
  EQIP is the only area where the Northeast States get some 
assistance--so it doesn't sound parochial, the backlog in my State is 
less than $8 million. The backlog in Iowa is about $29 million. We just 
want to build the firewall. That is all.
  When the Congress, in a bill that had been debated for weeks and 
negotiated for weeks, tells the Department of Agriculture to do 
something, I like to think they are going to do something. GAO says 
they are not following our clear intent.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with the Senator that USDA should have followed 
the farm bill and the White House simply choose not to do so.
  Mr. LEAHY. What we are saying is just build the firewall, not rob 
Peter to pay Paul from these conservation programs, especially CRP, 
which I support. CRP is used in the Senator's State of Iowa a great 
deal. I have always supported the other Senators.
  All I am saying is go back to CCC where this is supposed to be. That 
is all.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Vermont that 
we go back to CCC, but the section 11 cap still applies and there would 
be no funding technical assistance for CRP. The Senator has to know 
that under the Senator's amendment, new enrollments for CRP will 
effectively come to an end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask for at least 5 more minutes, after 
yielding time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I understand what the Senator is doing, 
but two wrongs do not make a right. Now, if the Senator wants to have 
an amendment that would lift the section 11 cap, or that would clearly 
spell out that the farm bill once again in 2002--what we did--bypassed 
the section 11 cap, that is fine.
  As I understand it, as I read his amendment, as my staff has informed 
me, as I have looked at it, that is not what the amendment does. The 
amendment simply, as the Senator said, builds firewalls. By building 
firewalls, that goes against what we did in the 2003 omnibus bill, 
because in the omnibus bill we provided for a mechanism that said we 
could then use these funds for technical assistance, and that is 
exactly what we are doing.
  Again, I say that the Senator from Vermont is correct in that we have 
a

[[Page S14139]]

situation in which money that the farm bill provided for some 
conservation programs is being diverted to pay for technical assistance 
for others. I am all for changing that but not in the way the Senator 
wants, because the way the Senator wants effectively cuts off signing 
up for the CRP program.
  I am a big supporter of the EQIP program, and FPP and WHIP and GRP. 
That is fine, and they should be fully funded, as they were in our farm 
bill, but we cannot abandon the CRP program. That is exactly what the 
effect of this amendment would do.
  Those of us from those States in which we have the CRP program or the 
CRP program in which we have continuous signup, this would take money 
away from this very effective program. Almost all states have land 
enrolled in CRP and there are 23 states that have CREPs--new 
enrollments in those and continuous CRP would come to a halt.
  We could solve this problem of TA funding for CRP and WRP for, 
according to estimates from USDA, $100 million a year or for $300 
million from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2006. Three hundred 
million dollars would take care of the whole thing. Yet the 
administration will not provide this money at all.
  The President requested nearly $900 million this year for Iraq to 
have funds for irrigation equipment and the protection of marshlands in 
the Supplemental. So we have $900 million to go to Iraq for irrigation 
equipment and protection of marshlands, and $300 million would take 
care of our entire country in terms of the Conservation Reserve Program 
and the Wetlands Reserve Program for three years.
  There are ways of fixing this, I say to my friend from Vermont, and 
ways that we agreed upon in the farm bill. The Senator from Vermont and 
I were together on the farm bill. We agreed on how to do this, but this 
is not the way to do it now.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I thought in the unanimous 
consent request we divided the 5 minutes. I am told we did not so it is 
still the time of the Senator, but I would say all I want to do is what 
we did in the bill. I want the USDA to follow the bill, and I would 
read a colloquy. It says:

     . . . funding for technical assistance will come from the 
     borrowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and 
     will no longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter 
     Act. For those programs such as the CRP, WRP, and the 
     Grasslands Reserves Program, which involve enrollment based 
     on acreage, the technical assistance funding will come from 
     the annual program outlays apportioned by OMB--again, from 
     the borrowing authority of the CCC. These programs, too, will 
     no longer be affected by section 11 of the CCC Charter Act.

  That was on the floor from the statement of the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa as the manager of that bill.
  I do not know how much clearer I can say it. We are trying to get the 
Department of Agriculture to follow the law.
  I know the Senator from Iowa has been a supporter of all of these 
programs, as I have of the programs that affect his State, not those of 
us in the East. I am just saying I want the Department of Agriculture 
to stick to the agreement they made with the conferees at the time we 
passed the bill, and the only way it seems we can get them to do that 
is to restate it in this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would join with the Senator in any kind of an amendment 
to get rid of the section 11 cap. That is the answer right there, get 
rid of the section 11 cap.
  We effectively did that in the farm bill. The administration says no. 
Well, an amendment to that line would do that.
  In closing, the major wildlife groups in this country, from Ducks 
Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, National Audubon Society, 
Pheasants Forever, the Wildlife Society, and Wildlife Management 
Institute do not support this amendment. They sent a letter to both 
Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl that said they can't support 
this amendment if it would have a chilling effect on CRP.
  Again, I find myself in a strange position because in many ways I 
agree with the Senator from Vermont. He is right in what he is trying 
to do in terms of saying that we have to have more funding for 
technical assistance, but not in this manner because it would 
effectively stop the CRP program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time on the Leahy amendment has 
expired.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. As I understand it, Senator Harkin still has 10 minutes 
to speak on the Daschle amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry. I did not realize the parliamentary 
situation. Are these two votes going to be lumped together?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes, the two votes will be stacked. We have reserved 10 
minutes for the Senator from Iowa to speak on the Leahy amendment and 
10 minutes for him to speak on the Daschle amendment. If he wishes to 
yield back his 10 minutes on the Daschle amendment, there will be no 
objection.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the 2002 farm bill included an important 
program, known as country-of-origin labeling, that adds value to farm 
products and gives consumers more information about the origin of foods 
they buy for their families. Opponents of the law have used scare 
tactics and false information in an attempt to water down or overturn 
this important program.
  Unfortunately, the opponents of the law persuaded the House 
Appropriations agricultural subcommittee to cancel funding to carry out 
this program as it applies to labeling for meat. This is the wrong 
course. USDA needs the funding to continue the rule making process so 
the program is workable as it was intended by the farm bill.
  A large number of other countries have country-of-origin labeling. 
The General Accounting Office has found that of the 57 U.S. trading 
partners, 48 require country-of-origin labeling for one or more of the 
commodities covered by our country-of-origin labeling law.
  In this country, over 135 organizations, from the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, and the Consumer 
Federation of America--broad support--support country-of-origin 
labeling for meat. These organizations represent the will of producers 
and consumers across our country.
  Several academic studies in the last year have examined the benefits 
of country-of-origin labeling for meat. For example, the International 
Agricultural Trade and Policy Center at the University of Florida found 
that the benefits of labeling beef clearly outweighed the costs. 
Research by Colorado State University found that consumers were willing 
to pay an 11-percent premium on steak and a 24-percent premium for 
country-of-origin labeling on hamburger.
  This research reflects the desire for country-of-origin labeling of 
meat. Country-of-origin labeling for meat is law. It is law right now. 
It became law when President Bush signed the 2002 farm bill. Whether or 
not the Agriculture appropriations bill funds the program, the law 
still requires meat to be labeled. Removing funding essentially creates 
a situation where retailers will still be legally required to label 
meat but USDA will have no funding to provide oversight and work out in 
a meaningful manner any problems that exist within the meat-labeling 
regulations.
  Then again next year the same debate will come before Congress, 
asking us to remove funding, asking us to delay country-of-origin 
labeling for meat for another year. This is just a 1-year bill. The law 
is already there on the books. Removing funding as the House 
Appropriations Committee did does not solve any problems. It only 
creates more problems down the road for the program that is already in 
the law and that would provide consumers the information they want.
  Madam President, it was interesting that in the House appropriations 
bill, they cut out funding for country-of-origin labeling for meat but, 
guess what, they left the money in there for country-of-origin labeling 
for peanuts. They

[[Page S14140]]

left the money in there for country-of-origin labeling for fish. They 
left the money for country-of-origin labeling in there for vegetables. 
They left the money for country-of-origin labeling in there for fruit. 
But not meat.
  Right away you have to ask yourself a question: What is this all 
about? Why would they say consumers ought to have the right to know 
where their fish comes from, but not their meat? Why would they say 
consumers ought to have the right to know where their peanuts come 
from, but not their meat?
  The fact is, a few in this country--a few, and I mean a few--are 
trying to overcome in the appropriations process what they could not 
succeed in doing when we passed the farm bill. They were there. They 
testified. They had their proposals. They didn't want country-of-origin 
labeling. We voted on it and it was passed in the House, it was passed 
in the Senate, it was kept in conference, and the President signed it. 
Now they are attempting to undo that through the appropriations 
process. That is why we have to speak loudly and clearly that we want 
to make sure the law is carried forward.
  As I pointed out, even if you don't fund it, retailers will still 
have to abide by the law. They will still have to give us country-of-
origin labeling on meat. It just means the Department of Agriculture 
will not be able to help them clear up any confusion that may arise. 
That is the worst possible position in which we could put our 
retailers. We ought to give them the assistance, the help, the support, 
the advice, the consultation the Department of Agriculture should do to 
implement this law.
  Before I close, I want to take a moment to say I am pleased the 
Senate supported the amendment by Senators Dorgan and Burns, which I 
cosponsored, to increase the funding level of the Rural Broadband Loan 
Program. I worked to include the loan program in the 2002 farm bill to 
help bring high-speed Internet to rural farm communities across the 
country.
  Since its launch, there have been more than $1 billion in loan 
applications to build the broadband infrastructure. This extra funding 
will go a long way to ensure this program remains strong and can 
provide the resources needed to ensure rural America keeps faith with 
its urban neighbors in the 21st century.
  In closing, I don't know if I will have time to speak again on the 
bill. I think we are coming close to voting. First, let me commend the 
chairman and ranking member for putting together a great Agriculture 
appropriations bill. I thank them for accepting the rural broadband 
provisions, as well as many other very good provisions. If we can past 
the amendment that was just offered here, I think we will have a 
tremendous Agriculture appropriations bill.
  I commend the chairman and commend the ranking member for the 
excellent job they have done on this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his courtesy and kind words. I 
must now confess error. When we entered into the unanimous consent 
agreement, we inadvertently left off an opportunity for the chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee to offer an amendment. I apologize to Senator 
Cochran for that oversight.
  I ask unanimous consent that an additional 10 minutes be set aside, 
equally divided, between Senator Cochran and any opponents to his 
amendment, to be taken care of before we proceed to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to 
allow Senator Cochran to come to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Senator Cochran is in the cloakroom and will be coming 
on to the floor momentarily. I simply want to once again apologize to 
him for our inadvertence in leaving his amendment off the list. I 
appreciate the indulgence of Senators to have this additional 5 to 10 
minutes for the opportunity to dispose of this particular amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 2120

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk under 
the unanimous consent request and ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be laid aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2120.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:

             (Purpose: To provide plant variety protection)

       On page 19, line 26, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, in the case of the 
     term of protection for the variety for which certificate 
     number 8200179 was issued, on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue a new 
     certificate for a term of protection of 10 years for the 
     variety, except that the Secretary may terminate the 
     certificate (at the end of any calendar year that is more 
     than 5 years after the date of issuance of the certificate) 
     if the Secretary determines that a new variety of seed (that 
     is substantially based on the genetics of the variety for 
     which the certificate was issued) is commercially viable and 
     available in sufficient quantities to meet market demands''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the Plant Variety Protection Act 
codifies our international commitments under treaties for protection of 
plant varieties. The law gives plant varieties 20 years of protection, 
similar to a patent, in order to preserve the quality of the variety. 
The law currently does not provide any mechanism to provide for periods 
of additional protection for varieties that are still commercially 
valuable.
  The original PVPA certificate for Marshall ryegrass was issued prior 
to the adoption of the latest changes pursuant to international 
negotiations and, as a result, were protected for less than the current 
20-year period. My amendment would provide an additional period of PVPA 
protection of up to 10 years for one of the most if not the most 
heavily used varieties of ryegrass used by livestock producers around 
the country.
  The Secretary would be authorized to cancel this protection as soon 
as a new variety of this valuable feed grass is developed.
  There are letters which I will send to the desk for inclusion in the 
Record in support of this amendment. One is from OreGro Seeds 
Incorporated in Oregon; another is from a second company, Smith Seed 
Services in Oregon; another from Plantbreeding Seed Production, Seed 
Trade, member of an organization called the Barenbrug Group.
  I ask unanimous consent all of these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Oregro Seed, Inc.,

                                         Shedd, OR, July 11, 2003.
     Re plant variety protection for Marshall Ryegrass.

     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith, We understand that Senator Cochran is 
     introducing legislation that will extend the PVP for Marshall 
     Ryegrass. This legislation is of critical importance to the 
     Oregon grass seed industry, and we urge you to give this 
     measure your strongest support.
       Your strong support for the Oregon seed industry is greatly 
     appreciated, and we also urge you to contact Senator 
     Cochran's office to express your support for this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
     Don Herb.
                                  ____



                                          Smith Seed Services,

                                        Halsay, OR, July 11, 2003.
     Re legislation from Senator Cochran.

     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith, Senator Cochran is introducing 
     legislation to extend the PVP production for Marshall annual 
     ryegrass. This legislation is critically important to the 
     Oregon grass seed industry. I strongly urge your support for 
     this legislation.
       Smith Seed is one of the largest producer and shipper of 
     forage and turf grass seed in

[[Page S14141]]

     Oregon. We have about 100 to 120 employees and represent a 
     grower base of over 300 independent grass seed farmer 
     producers. We ship in excess of 160 million pounds of seed 
     annually to domestic and international accounts.
       Your strong support for this important legislation for the 
     Oregon seed industry is greatly appreciated, and I also ask 
     that you contact Senator Cochran's office to express your 
     support.
       Thank you for your service and support of the Oregon seed 
     industry.
           Sincerely,
     Paul Zehr.
                                  ____



                                                Barenbrug USA,

                                       Tangent, OR, July 11, 2003.
     Re legislation from Senator Cochran.

     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: We are aware that Senator Cochran, 
     (Miss R) is introducing legislation in the upcoming Senate 
     Agricultural Committee in DC next week, to extend the Plant 
     Variety Protection (PVP) for Marshall annual ryegrass. This 
     legislation is of vital importance to the long term viability 
     of the US and Oregon grass seed industry, and in the 
     strongest possible way, we ask for your support of this 
     important measure.
       Barenbrug USA is an Oregon based grass seed breeding, 
     production and wholesale marketing company. We employ more 
     than 150 workers, and buy seed from family farmers on over 
     40,000 acres in Oregon and the Northwest. We consider 
     ourselves to be one of the leaders in this industry, and one 
     of the largest grass seed companies in the world.
       By extending the PVP on this variety, the value level of 
     grass seed sales in the US South and South East will be 
     maintained. By not extending the PVP, there is a significant 
     chance that named ryegrass varieties will again be seen as 
     commodities and no longer be sold at price levels which 
     assure returns for the entire seed value chain, including the 
     seed growers. All seed of ryegrass varieties is produced in 
     Oregon, hence our interest in this discussion and our request 
     to you.
       We sincerely appreciate your support during session for 
     this legislation that is critical to the US and Oregon grass 
     seed industry, and also ask that you contact Senator 
     Cochran's office to voice your strong support.
       Thank you for your record of dedicated service and support 
     of our industry. Please advise if you have any questions or 
     comments.
           Sincerely,
                                               Marc W. Cool, M.Sc.
                                               Vice President/COO.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I also have a letter from the Livestock 
Producers Association and a letter from the State of Mississippi's 
Department of Agriculture and Commerce.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Livestock Producers Association,

                                     Tylertown, MS, April 4, 2003.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir: I am writing to ask for your help in getting the 
     Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certification extended for 
     Marshall Ryegrass.
       Marshall Ryegrass has been an integral part of many 
     Mississippi cattle operations for many years and without the 
     assurance of PVP, there is great concern that the integrity 
     of the variety would be compromised.
       Grass varieties often lose their identity quickly after PVP 
     expires and in light of the fact that there is not a clearly 
     superior product for winter forage production, I feel that 
     maintaining the genuine Marshall strain is very important to 
     the cattle producers of our state.
       We need Marshall, not an inferior substitute.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mike Pigott,
     Manager.
                                  ____

         State of Mississippi, Department of Agriculture and 
           Commerce,
                                   Jackson, MS, February 11, 2003.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senator, Mississippi,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cochran: This letter is written in concern for 
     the protection of Marshall Ryegrass under the Plant Variety 
     Protection Act (PVPA). The patent on this grass has expired, 
     and I--as well as others--would like to have the patent 
     extended on this variety of grass.
       Marshall Ryegrass is extremely popular among Mississippi 
     farmers who plant winter grazing crops. The loss of the 
     patent protection can and will lead to widespread deception 
     and mislabeling of poor quality grazing grasses. Due to this 
     concern, it is my request that Congress enact legislation 
     that will restore the PVPA protection for the Marshall 
     Ryegrass variety.
       Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                Lester Spell, Jr.,
                                                     Commissioner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the time on 
the amendment. I yield the time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded.
  Mr. KOHL. I yield our time.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2120) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I understand that I had 5 minutes 
allocated to me under the unanimous consent agreement. I am prepared to 
yield that back and proceed to a vote.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, it is my understanding that all time 
has been yielded. We are, therefore, ready to vote.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2119

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) and the Senator Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 442 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The amendment (No. 2119) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 
2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
Daschle amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
two votes in this series, this one and the vote on final passage, be 
limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield back all of the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

[[Page S14142]]

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to table the Daschle amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There 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. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 443 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Durbin
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, with the motion to table having failed, I 
ask for a voice vote on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2078.
  The amendment (No. 2078) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are ready to move to final passage. I 
have some housekeeping details before we do that.


 Amendments Nos. 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129, 
            2085, 2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, and 2134, En Bloc

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a group of amendments, 
all of which have been cleared on both sides, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc and that they be approved en 
bloc by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2121

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the removal of trees that have been 
       adversely affected by the emerald ash borer, with offsets)

       On page 3, line 12, strike ``$119,289,000'' and insert 
     ``$118,789,000''.
       On page 5, line 1, strike ``$188,022,000'' and insert 
     ``$187,022,000''.
       On page 17, line 16, after ``eradication zones'' insert ``; 
     and of which not less than $1,500,000 (in addition to any 
     other funds made available for eradication or containment) 
     shall be used by the Emerald Ash Borer Task Force for the 
     removal of trees that have been adversely affected by the 
     emerald ash borer, with a priority for the removal of trees 
     on public property or that threaten public safety''.


                           amendment no. 2122

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress 
  on acquisitions made by the Department of Agriculture of articles, 
     materials, or supplies manufactured outside the United States)

       On page 6, line 12, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``: Provided further, That of such amount, sufficient funds 
     shall be available for the Secretary of Agriculture, not 
     later than 60 days after the last day of the fiscal year, to 
     submit to Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions 
     made by the Department of Agriculture during such fiscal year 
     of articles, materials, or supplies that were manufactured 
     outside the United States. Such report shall separately 
     indicate the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies purchased by the Department of Agriculture that were 
     manufactured outside the United States, an itemized list of 
     all waivers under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.) that were granted with respect to such articles, 
     materials, or supplies, and a summary of total procurement 
     funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus 
     funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United 
     States. The Secretary of Agriculture shall make the report 
     publicly available by posting the report on an Internet 
     website.''.


                           amendment no. 2123

  (Purpose: To permit the use of remaining fiscal year 2003 funds to 
carry out the program of loans and loan guarantees to provide access to 
         broadband telecommunications services in rural areas)

       On page 76, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 749. ACCESS TO BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN 
                   RURAL AREAS.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries 
     and expenses of personnel to expend the $20,000,000 made 
     available by section 601(j)(1)(A) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb(j)(1)(A)) for 
     fiscal year 2004.


                           amendment no. 2124

 (Purpose: To control and alleviate the cormorant problem in the State 
                              of Michigan)

       On page 17, line 16, before the colon, insert the 
     following: ``; and of which up to $275,000 may be used to 
     control or alleviate the cormorant problem in the State of 
     Michigan''.


                           amendment no. 2125

(Purpose: To provide minimum funding for certain types of agricultural 
                         management assistance)

       On page 78, strike lines 8 through 16, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 759. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 524(b)(4)(B) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1542(b)(4)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Certain uses.--Of the amounts made available to 
     carry out this subsection for each fiscal year, the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation shall use not less than--

       ``(I) $15,000,000 to carry out subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C) of paragraph (2) through the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service; and
       ``(II) $2,000,000 to provide organic certification cost 
     share assistance through the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service.''.


                           amendment no. 2126

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make funding and 
 other assistance available through the emergency watershed protection 
program to repair and prevent damage to non-Federal land in watersheds 
 that have been impaired by fires initiated by the Federal Government 
 and to waive cost sharing requirements for the funding and assistance)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture is authorized hereafter to make funding and 
     other assistance available through the emergency watershed 
     protection program under section 403 of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203) to repair and prevent 
     damage to non-Federal land in watersheds that have been 
     impaired by fires initiated by the Federal Government and to 
     waive cost sharing requirements for the funding and 
     assistance.


                           amendment no. 2127

    (Purpose: To expand the business size restrictions of the Rural 
          Business Enterprise Grant Program for Oakridge, OR)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``The Secretary may waive the requirements regarding small 
     and emerging rural business as authorized under the Rural 
     Business Enterprise Grant program for the purpose of a lease 
     for the Oakridge Oregon Industrial Park.''


                           amendment no. 2128

(Purpose: To provide funds to carry out the historic barn preservation 
                        program, with an offset)

       On page 42, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

                   Historic Barn Preservation Program

       For the historic barn preservation program established 
     under section 379A of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008o), $2,000,000.

[[Page S14143]]

       On page 58, line 19, strike ``$90,435,000'' and insert 
     ``$88,435,000''.


                           amendment no. 2129

  (Purpose: To modify the requirements for a water and waste disposal 
 grant to the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL GRANT TO THE ALASKA 
                   DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (1) the Alaska Department of Community and Economic 
     Development may be eligible to receive a water and waste 
     disposal grant under section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)) in an amount 
     that is up to 75 percent of the total cost of providing water 
     and sewer service to the proposed hospital in the Matanuska-
     Susitna Borough, Alaska;
       (2) the Alaska Department of Community and Economic 
     Development may be allowed to pass the grant funds through to 
     the local government entity that will provide water and sewer 
     service to the hospital; and


                           amendment no. 2085

(Purpose: To permit the enrollment in the conservation reserve program 
           of certain land on which trees have been planted)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       Land shall be considered eligible land under section 
     1231(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(b)) 
     for purposes of enrollment into the conservation reserve 
     program established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3831 et seq.) if the land--
       (1) is planted to hardwood trees as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) was enrolled in the conservation reserve program under 
     a contract that expired before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.


                           amendment no. 2130

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to purchase chickens treated 
                         with fluoroquinolone)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. PROHIBITION OF USE OF FUNDS TO PURCHASE CHICKEN 
                   TREATED WITH FLUOROQUINOLONE.

       After December 31, 2003, none of the funds made available 
     by this Act may be used to purchase chickens or the products 
     of chickens for use in any program under the Child Nutrition 
     Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) or the Richard B. 
     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), 
     unless the supplier provides certification that the supplier 
     does not feed or administer fluoroquinolone to chickens 
     produced by the supplier.


                           amendment no. 2131

  (Purpose: To provide loan guarantees for major projects for certain 
                       renewable energy systems)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM LOAN GUARANTEES.

       Title IX of The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 is amended by adding the following new section:

     SEC. : RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM LOAN GUARANTEES.

       ``Loan Guarantees for Certain Projects.--
       ``(1) Definition of subsidy costs.--In this subsection, the 
     term `subsidy costs' has the meaning given the term `cost' in 
     section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 
     U.S.C. 661a).
       ``(2) Projects.--Subsection (c)(1) shall not apply to a 
     loan guarantee made under this subsection to carry out a 
     project if--
       ``(A) the loan will be used--
       ``(i) to purchase a renewable energy system that has, as 1 
     of its principal purposes, the commercial production of an 
     agricultural commodity; and
       ``(ii) to promote a solution to an environmental problem in 
     a rural area of the State in which the project will be 
     carried out;
       ``(B) the lender of the loan exercises due diligence with 
     respect to theborrower of the loan;
       ``(C) the borrower of the loan pays in full, before the 
     guarantee is issued, a guarantee fee in the amount of the 
     estimated subsidy cost of the guarantee, as determined by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
       ``(D) except as provided in subparagraph (E), the principal 
     amount of the loan is not more than $25,000,000;
       ``(E) the principal amount of the loan is more than 
     $25,000,000, but is not more than $75,000,000, if the 
     Secretary--
       ``(i) approves the loan application; and
       ``(ii) does not delegate the authority described in clause 
     (i);
       ``(F) the project requires no Federal or State financial 
     assistance, other than the loan guarantee provided under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(G) the project complies with all necessary permits, 
     licenses, and approvals required under the laws of the State.
       ``(3) Cost sharing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount of a loan guarantee under 
     this subsection for a project described in paragraph (2) 
     shall not exceed 80 percent of the total project cost.
       ``(B) Subordination.--Any financing for the non-Federal 
     share of the total project cost shall be subordinated to the 
     federally guaranteed portion of the total project cost.
       ``(4) Loan guarantee limits.--The loan guarantee 
     limitations applicable to the business and industry guarantee 
     loan program authorized under section 310B of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932) 
     shall apply to loan guarantees made under this subsection.
       ``(5) Maximum amount.--
       ``(A) Individual loans.--The amount of principal for a loan 
     under this subsection for a project described in paragraph 
     (2) shall not exceed $75,000,000.
       ``(B) All loans.--The total outstanding amount of principal 
     for loans under this subsection for all projects described in 
     paragraph (2) shall not exceed $500,000,000.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall publish a proposed rule to carry 
     out this section within 120 days of enactment of this Act.''


                           amendment no. 2132

 (Purpose: To clarify the Secretary may use competitive research grant 
               funds for certain requests for proposals)

       On page 71, line 2, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``, including requests for proposals for grants 
     for critical emerging issues described in section 401(c)(1) 
     of that Act for which the Secretary has not issued requests 
     for proposals for grants in fiscal 2002 or 2003''.


                           amendment no. 2133

 (Purpose: To increase funding for guaranteed broadband loans, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 47, line 13, strike ``$335,963,000'' and insert 
     ``$647,000,000''.
       On page 48, line 2, strike ``$9,116,000'' and insert 
     ``$15,116,000''.
       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. REDUCTION IN TRAVEL AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, each amount provided by this Act for travel 
     expenses is reduced by the pro rata percentage required to 
     reduce the total amount provided by this Act for such 
     expenses by $6,000,000.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a listing of the amounts by account of the reductions made 
     pursuant to subsection (a).


                           amendment no. 2134

  (Purpose: To modify the requirements for a water and waste disposal 
                 grant to the city of Postville, Iowa)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL GRANT TO THE CITY OF 
                   POSTVILLE, IOWA.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the city of 
     Postville, Iowa, shall be eligible to receive a water and 
     waste disposal grant under section 306(a) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)) in an 
     amount that is equal to not more than 75 percent of the total 
     cost of providing water and sewer service in the city.


                           amendment no. 2128

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Bennett and Ranking 
Member Kohl for their leadership in crafting the Senate's version of 
the 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill. I appreciate their 
willingness to work with me to include $2 million in funding for the 
Historic Barn Preservation Program. This program was authorized in the 
2002 farm bill, but until now has not received any funding.
  Our Nation's aging barns are important symbols of our agricultural 
heritage, and we must see that they remain a part of our landscapes. 
This program was established to preserve barns that are in danger of 
falling beyond repair due to decades of deferred maintenance. To 
qualify, a barn must be at least 50 years old. Preservationists are 
especially concerned with the oldest barns, many are more than 200 
years old and some date back as far as 1790.
  Before this program can be successfully implemented. Congress must 
give it adequate funding. My amendment, which would provide $2 million 
in funding for the barn preservation program, will address the growing 
demand for historic preservation in our rural communities by 
documenting and researching appropriate techniques and best practices 
for protecting these treasures.
  I am not alone in urging funding for the barn preservation program. 
Last June, I led a bipartisan group of 24 Senators who sent a letter to 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and 
Related Agencies urging that $10 million be included for this program.
  The Historic Barn Preservation Program also enjoys support from the 
preservation community. The National Trust for Historic Preservation 
has endorsed this program as well as numerous State preservation groups 
from

[[Page S14144]]

across the country. We all recognize that preservation of these barns 
will not only ensure their survival for generations to come, it will 
provide practical benefits to the farmers that own them and the 
communities and economies that surround them.
  Clearly, working structures such as these barns have as much to offer 
to our understanding of U.S. history as the birthplaces of our leaders 
or battlefields where our soldiers fought and died. These barns have 
served various functions, whether as military hospitals, refuges for 
slaves making their way along the Underground Railroad, local school 
buildings or temporary shelters for families moving west as our 
country's border expanded to the Pacific Coast.
  In my home State of Vermont, the State Historic Preservation Office 
currently administers a small grant program for barn preservation that 
has been funded by the Vermont Legislature since 1993. While this 
program has been very successful, applications continue to 
significantly outnumber the grants made through this program. For 
example, out of 60 annual requests, the program only has the resources 
to fund 15 to 20 of those requests.
  Federal funding through the new national Historic Barn Preservation 
Program will help address the growing backlog of requests for barn 
preservation grants in Vermont and across the country.
  Mr. President, I again thank the two managers of this bill and urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2130

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment to 
the Agriculture appropriations bill that will mean healthier food for 
school kids in New York and across the country.
  The amendment prohibits the use of funds from this bill for the 
purchase of chickens or products of chickens, unless the supplier 
provides certification that the supplier does not feed or administer 
fluoroquinolone to chickens produced by that supplier.
  This is a modest step forward in dealing with the growing problem of 
antibiotic resistance.
  The antibiotics we are dealing with in this amendment are called 
fluoroquinolones. Fluoroquinolones, a class of antibiotics that include 
Cipro, are the first choice in treating severe food poisoning and other 
diseases in humans.
  The Food and Drug Administration has determined that the use of 
fluoroquinolones in poultry contributes to increasing numbers of people 
becoming infected with antibiotic resistant Campylobacter, which causes 
severe abdominal pains, fever, and diarrhea. In essence, by using 
fluoroquinolones in our food, we are ensuring that more and more people 
will become resistant to certain infections, meaning more and more sick 
people.
  Corporate America is already responding to this pressing issue. The 
fast food chains McDonald's, Wendy's, and others have pledged not to 
use chicken that has been treated with fluoroquinolones in an effort to 
protect their customers.
  But the USDA continues to purchase chicken for the National School 
Lunch Program that has been treated with fluoroquinolones despite 
warnings about health risks and the availability of chickens that have 
not been treated with fluoroquinolones, and so do the schools that 
receive USDA money through the lunch program. The New York City Board 
of Education, for example, does not have a policy in place to ensure 
that chickens that New York City school kids eat have not been fed 
fluoroquinolones. And there are approximately 820,000 New York City 
school students and 1.4 million students across New York State that are 
in the School Lunch Program.
  Tyson, Gold Kist, and Purdue are all leading chicken producers that 
have committed to stop using fluoroquinolones in their chickens. The 
USDA and schools across the country could purchase chicken from these 
producers and others that do not use fluoroquinolones, without 
experiencing a negative economic impact.
  So this amendment says that no School Lunch Program funds can be used 
by the USDA or the schools to purchase chickens from suppliers that 
have not provided certification to the Secretary that they do not feed 
or administer fluoroquinolone to the chickens they produce.
  It is so important that we take this step. Children are at a greater 
risk to suffer from food borne illness and infections from antibiotic-
resistant bacteria. Data from the Centers for Disease Control show that 
between 1990 and 1999 the number of food-borne illness outbreaks in 
schools rose 10 percent per year. Over this time period, 16,000 
children have gotten sick from school outbreaks.
  All this amendment says is that children eating chicken provided by 
the School Lunch Program should be protected as much as customers at 
McDonald's and Wendy's.
  I am pleased that the Senate is taking a first step today to protect 
our school children from possible resistant infections by approving 
this amendment. I thank Senators Bennett and Kohl for their support, 
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this 
provision is retained in conference.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, at the request of the majority leader, I 
would like to have Senator Domenici recognized for a short colloquy and 
Senator Warner recognized for a short announcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                          Mental Health Parity

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there have been a lot of questions as to 
the status of the mental parity bill and where we are going and what 
our plans are from those who have been working on it for a long time. I 
remind everyone that this bill has been supported by large numbers of 
Senators.
  We have had our difficulties the last year. Without going into 
detail, we have had difficulties trying to get this worked out for 
hearings in the House. We are in a position where we cannot get that 
done.
  Now we are in a position where we can tell the Senators that the 
committee of jurisdiction, under the leadership of Judd Gregg, is 
looking at a substitute which seems acceptable to the community that 
helped us on the bill and that the chairman indicates will have a high 
priority in his committee the early part of next year. That means we 
should be passing mental parity in the first couple of months of the 
next session.
  I note the presence on the floor of my principal cosponsor, since the 
demise of Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy. We have discussed this at 
length. I believe he concurs that this is the best approach. Our 
majority leader agrees. The minority leader agrees, as does the 
chairman of the committee of jurisdiction.
  I would be pleased if Senator Kennedy will comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are talking about the Wellstone Mental 
Health Act. Senator Domenici and Paul Wellstone worked in this area and 
were leaders in mental health parity. There are now 67 cosponsors of 
this legislation. For a number of reasons, we have not been able to get 
this matter either scheduled or considered.
  As I understand what Senator Domenici is now saying, from his 
conversations with the Republican leader, we will have some assurance 
that we will have this matter before the Senate.
  I just talked with the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, 
who said he would make this a first order, a priority in the next 
session.
  I think what the community is looking for is assurance there would be 
Senate action. I understand from Senator Domenici he is fully committed 
to work and make sure the Senate is going to have an opportunity to 
address this issue in the early weeks of this next session. Am I 
correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely. There is no diminution of interest on my 
part. I started this many years ago. We did pass it. Now we have to 
pass it on a full scale, and we will. We have to wait now for reasons 
out of our control, but it will get done early next year.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with the assurances of the Senator from 
New Mexico as a senior member of this body and one all of us know, I 
have great confidence in him and know of his strong passion in this 
area. I think it is enormously important for our communities across 
this country, and I certainly welcome those assurances.

[[Page S14145]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge as well the efforts 
the Senator from New Mexico has made to get us to this point. Many of 
us had hoped we could complete our work on the bill in the Senate this 
year. I know it is a disappointment to him we have not been able to do 
that, but with the assurances he has given us tonight, working with the 
chairman, the ranking member, and certainly the majority leader, it 
would be my hope the very first legislation we take up in the second 
session will be this legislation. We will work with him, and I hope we 
could have that commitment from people on both sides of the aisle. I 
appreciate his efforts tonight to bring us to this point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to address the members of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee on both sides of the aisle. The House 
of Representatives is remaining in session until the wee hours of the 
night in the hopes they can receive from the Senate a conference report 
with sufficient signatures on it by which we can get the bill passed 
early next week. I am working with my distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Levin, and others. To those who can sign it at this point in 
time, I would greatly appreciate it.
  I ask Senator Levin be given a chance to reply.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I did not hear the beginning of that 
statement, but we are awaiting the document so we can read it. We would 
be happy to give an answer as promptly as we can, after the document is 
completed, but I understand there is some unfinished business and 
uncertainty that needs to be looked at.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. Given that this could well mean 
many Senators will leave, I just wish to put them on notice we have 
this one shot to get it done so we can have it on the calendar next 
week.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think we all hope it gets finished, but it is not 
finished yet.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2135

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2135.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. . TEXAS RICE SAFEGUARD INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--In order to provide a safeguard against 
     the further decline of the rice industry and wildlife habitat 
     in Texas, and to provide information to the congress in 
     anticipation of and preparation for the 2007 bill, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct the initiative 
     required under this section.
       (b) Administrative Improvements.--As an integral part of 
     the safeguard initiative--the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     review the administration and enhance the enforcement of 
     section 1105(a)(1)(E) of Public Law 107-171 as it relates to 
     and is applied to the control of noxious weeds and the proper 
     application and implementation of the conserving use 
     requirements on rice base acreage in Texas.
       (c) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary shall review and 
     evaluate the costs, benefits and effects of the safeguard 
     initiative on rice producers, including tenant rice 
     producers, the rice milling and processing industry, wildlife 
     habitat, and the economies of rice farming areas in Texas, 
     detailed by each of these affected interests and by the 
     program variables involved in the safeguard initiative under 
     subsections (b) and (c), including whether or not producers 
     on a farm have qualified plantings. The Secretary shall 
     provide to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives an annual report detailing the 
     progress and findings of the initiative not later than 
     February 1 of each of the years 2005 through 2007.

  Mr. BENNETT. The amendment has been cleared on both sides. It was 
inadvertently left out of the other stack of amendments that were 
submitted. I ask that the amendment pass on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2135) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we have come to final passage. May I take 
the opportunity once again to thank Senator Kohl and his staff for the 
cooperative way in which they have worked to get us to this point. I 
appreciate very much the support of all Senators.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.


                      Amendment No. 2084, Vitiated

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
adoption of amendment No. 2084.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2073

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to adopt the 
pending Kohl amendment, No. 2073.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2073) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the vote on final passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request 
a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate so we can 
understand what the Senator is saying.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will come 
to order.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on final 
passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with 
the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part 
of the Senate to consist of the members of the subcommittee and 
Senators Stevens and Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent to reconsider the votes of all 
the amendments that have been sent forward and for that motion to be 
laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have nothing further to say.


           Initiative For Future Agriculture and Food Systems

  Mr. HARKIN. The 2002 farm bill reauthorized and increased funding for 
the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, IFAFS, 
competitive grants program, a program originally authorized as section 
401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 
of 1998. The Initiative supports outcome-oriented, integrated research, 
extension, and education competitive grants to address critical 
emerging agricultural and rural issues related to four key areas: 
future food production, environmental quality and natural resource 
management, farm income, and rural economic and business and community 
development.
  The farm bill provides $140 million in mandatory funds from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation for IFAFS in fiscal year 2004. The 
appropriations bill before us contains a provision which prohibits the 
Department from implementing IFAFS in fiscal year 2004. However, the 
bill also allows the Department to use 20 percent of funding 
appropriated for the National Research Initiative, NRI, to carry out a 
competitive grants program under the same terms and conditions as those 
provided in the farm bill for IFAFS. The bill as amended also requires 
the Department,

[[Page S14146]]

in implementing this provision, to request grant proposals, among the 
four critical emerging issues required by law, for which the Department 
has not issued requests for proposals for grants in fiscal year 2002 or 
2003.
  I ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member if it is their 
understanding that in requiring this funding set-aside to be carried 
out under the same ``terms and conditions'' as the IFAFS program that 
the Senate bill intends for the Department to ensure that over time, 
all four statutorily-designated purposes for IFAFS spending are 
subjects for requests for proposals and reflected in the overall 
research portfolio of this portion of the NRI?
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KOHL. I agree that the Department should fulfill their 
responsibility to give effect to all the provisions of the IFAFS 
program.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is it further the understanding of the Senator that the 
language added by amendment today requires the Department to request 
proposals that specifically enhance farm income and rural economic, 
business, and community development?
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes. It is my understanding that these two critical 
emerging issues have not been funded in the previous two fiscal years.
  Mr. KOHL. I would also concur, and would add that it would be my hope 
the Department would give particular consideration to farm income-
enhancing projects that advance the statutory priority mission area 
related to small and medium-size farm viability and competitiveness.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member. I 
would also point out to my colleagues that the 2002 farm bill provided 
specific direction for the Department to pursue grant making for 
integrated research, education, and extension in key areas related to 
rural and agriculturally-based development and farm profitability and 
rural entrepreneurship. I would inform my colleagues that it is my 
intent to ensure the Department solicits proposals in at least some of 
these critical areas during fiscal year 2004.


               conservation technical assistance program

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Utah, the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, for his leadership in bringing this important spending 
bill to the floor. Wyoming is greatly impacted by this bill, and 
Senator Bennett's leadership is very much appreciated. Because of this 
tremendous impact on Wyoming, I would like to ask my colleague if he 
would join me in a colloquy to discuss one of the programs that is 
funded in his bill. Specifically, I would like to discuss the 
Department of Agriculture's Conservation Technical Assistance Program 
that is administered through the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
and its potential impact on land management planning on private lands 
within the U.S. Forest Service's Thunder Basin National Grasslands.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would be glad to join my colleague from Wyoming in a 
discussion and I agree with him that this is an important program for 
the West, and, if it is implemented properly, it should help States 
such as Wyoming and Utah, maximize local conservation efforts by 
allowing them to target dollars where they are needed most.
  Mr. ENZI. I would like to share one example of an effort in Wyoming 
that has already benefited from this program and which I feel could 
greatly benefit in the future from its continued participation. Three 
years ago I met with officials from the Thunder Basin Prairie Ecosystem 
Association, the Department of Interior and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to discuss the role that private landowners could play in 
developing land management plans on Western National Grasslands. The 
Landowners Association presented a revolutionary proposal to combine 
the talent and resources of all local landowners to develop an 
Ecosystem Assessment and to enter into a series of Ecosystem Management 
Strategy and Conservation Agreements with the Forest Service and the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would integrate a comprehensive, 
multispecies land management proposal for more than 260,000 acres of 
Federal and private lands within the U.S. Forest Service's Thunder 
Basin National Grasslands.
  Their proposal was to first establish a scientific baseline where 
they cataloged what was on the land and what species existed. Then they 
proposed to use that baseline to make ecosystem-wide management 
decisions that would make the land as a whole more vibrant and more 
sustainable for a number of species, including the black-tailed prairie 
dog, the black footed ferret and the sage grouse. What they would not 
do was make management plans based on the presence or absence of any 
one specific species or to pit different species' habitat requirements 
against each other. Their goal was to make the land healthier as a 
whole so that all species would be better off.
  As a result of their efforts the Department of Interior was able to 
provide an initial grant to the Association through the Landowner's 
Incentive Program of $150,000 that allowed them to assemble an advisory 
committee made up of national grasslands experts that has helped them 
develop scientific research and monitoring protocols that are now being 
used to establish baseline information on area wildlife and ecosystem 
concerns. In fiscal year 2003, we funded this program at $175,000 which 
allowed the association to continue its monitoring efforts and to host 
a symposium in Wyoming on cooperative land use efforts. These funds, 
however, fell short of what the association was hoping to accomplish 
and their 5-year goals have been pushed back due to this lack of 
funding.
  I would like to see this group funded again in fiscal year 2004 to 
ensure that their efforts have not been wasted. It would be most 
effective, however, if the association was funded at $582,000 out of 
the Conservation Technical Assistance at NRCS so the group could get 
back on track and complete its planning process on schedule.
  I ask my colleague if he has any thoughts on whether or not we could 
recommend funding this program through the NRCS?
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree with my colleague that this appears to be a 
worthy project whose goals of habitat protection and species 
restoration are consistent with the expressed goals of the Conservation 
Technical Assistance Program. I believe this innovative effort should 
be considered for funding by the Department of Agriculture, and I 
encourage them to work with the association to make these funds 
available.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank my colleague for his thoughts and once again 
express my appreciation for his leadership in these important issues. I 
thank the chair for the opportunity to discuss this program.


               control of geese in the state of new york

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank 
Senator Kohl for his generosity in including the increase of $200,000 
for the control of the numerous species of birds that cause hardship 
throughout New York. When making the request, I meant for the money to 
be increased specifically to address needs of the Hudson Valley and 
parts on Long Island to control their populations of geese and ask that 
the report specifically refer to ``an increase of $200,000 for the 
control of geese in the State of New York.''
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. We 
will do what we can.


                   projects of interest in louisiana

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for the 
opportunity to address several issues as the Agricultural 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004 is considered on the floor of 
the Senate as well as in a conference with House Agricultural 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004. It is my intention in this 
statement to express positions with respect to several areas of 
particular importance to me and my State of Louisiana that the chairman 
and ranking member will take during conference with the House. I would 
also like to thank both the chairman and ranking member for the number 
of my requests that were addressed in S. Rept. 108-107.
  There are several instances in the report where the committee 
expresses its

[[Page S14147]]

desire that the agency give consideration to projects of interest and 
concern to entities in Louisiana. This reflects the committee's finding 
that these projects are worthy and deserve consideration by the agency. 
Therefore, I urge you and the chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Senator Bennett, to join me in further 
announcing our desire that the Secretary of Agriculture give 
consideration to the following projects when granting any available 
funds through programs for which these projects may be eligible.
  First, the Union-Lincoln Parish Water Supply Initiative is a crucial 
project which has focused on the depletion of the Sparta Aquifer, a 
natural aquifer which is the primary source of drinking water for North 
Louisiana and Southern Arkansas. The Sparta Groundwater Conservation 
District recently released initial information from its analysis of the 
Sparta formation indicating that demand must be cut from a projected 72 
million gallons per day to 54 million gallons per day over the next 10 
years. To offset this gap between demand and available supply, 
alternative sources including river water, reservoir water, as well as 
possible other aquifers must be examined. The committee recognized this 
need on page 112 of S. Rept. 108-107.
  Second, the Bawcomville Flood Control Pumps, originally constructed 
in 1955, protect two residential communities against flooding from the 
Ouachita River. Additional pumping capacity is required to reduce 
interior flooding and accommodate urbanization. The committee 
recognized this need on p. 110 of S. Rept. 108-107.
  Third, the Southern Training and Social Service Complex is of vital 
importance to the communities and economy of central Louisiana. This 
facility will provide a sports program and after-school juvenile 
program for at-risk youths in the central Louisiana area. The committee 
recognized this need on p. 111 of S. Rept. 108-107.
  Fourth, the Town of Golden Meadow, LA, requires improvements to the 
drainage infrastructure on one of its main thoroughfares, Jefferson 
Street. The committee recognized this need on p. 110 of S. 108-107.
  Fifth, the Town of Golden Meadow, LA, requires a multi-purpose 
building that would serve as the center for emergency response during 
hurricanes and other catastrophic times. The committee recognized this 
need on p. 110 of S. 108-107.
  Sixth, Continental Structural Plastics in Spring Hill, LA, requires 
plastic extruding equipment to manufacture plastic railroad ties for 
the proposed new railroad line that would bring needed economic 
development in the area. The committee recognized this need on p. 111 
of S. 108-107.
  Lastly, the Greater Ouachita Port Commission seeks to establish a 
facility that will provide for the operation of a river port and 
commercial park, comprehensively connecting Ouachita Parish and the 
surrounding area to international trade and commerce. The committee 
recognized this need on p. 111 of S. Rept. 108-107.
  Mr. KOHL. I would be pleased to assist you in any way with these 
worthy projects. Additionally, I will entertain the possibility of 
joining you in addressing the Secretary of Agriculture by way of a 
letter regarding these specific projects and, if appropriate, will 
encourage our colleague, Chairman Bennet, to participate as well.


                             agro-terrorism

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is widely felt that we need to do more 
to protect field crops, farm animals and food processing and 
distribution of food from terrorist acts. I understand that is the view 
of the Departments of Agriculture and Homeland Security. State and 
local governments and the private sector all play an integral role in 
detecting, deterring, and responding to acts of agro-terrorism.
  We need coordination among the States in regard to subjects like 
laboratory capacity and testing protocols; training and education 
protocols; the tracking of animal and food product movements; and post-
incident actions such as rapid response teams, common incident command 
structures, quarantine procedures, public information management 
strategies, and coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and State and local public health authorities.
  I believe that the Department of Agriculture needs to be as 
supportive as possible of such efforts.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa raises a good point. 
Although funds are tight, we should work to determine how we can 
improve our Federal agro-terrorism defenses and work to help the States 
improve their efforts as well. The potential economic loss from such an 
event is huge. The danger to human lives could be dramatic. I would 
like to work with the Senator from Iowa to see what we can do to 
improve our efforts in this area in conference.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senators from Iowa and Wisconsin 
raise a very important issue. We all hope that we will never have to 
find out how good the systems designed to block or mitigate against 
agro-terrorism are because of an actual attack. But, unfortunately we 
live in a world where we must prepare for such threats to the maximum 
extent feasible within our available resources. This is an area where 
the conference committee should explore the options that are before us 
to improve our Nation's defensive systems against threats to our 
agriculture and food systems.


                                ginseng

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have long advocated for the honest and accurate 
labeling of ginseng products. Some products previously claimed to 
include a product known as `Siberian Ginseng,' a bush that is 
distinctly different from ginseng root. I was pleased when portions of 
the Ginseng Truth in Labeling Act, a bill I introduced in the 107th 
Congress, were included in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002. These provisions promote fair trade practices and accurate 
labeling of ginseng products sold in the United States.
  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a direct final rule 
regarding the labeling of dietary supplements containing ginseng (68 
Fed. Reg. 167, August 28, 2003), and indicated that the industry must 
currently be in compliance with this labeling law. However, FDA has 
noted in correspondence that it had a number of other priorities that:

     . . . required the use of many of the Agency's limited 
     resources, including enforcement resources, which would 
     otherwise have been available for other important FDA 
     programs and activities.

  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for their work on determining 
funding priorities for FDA. I ask if the ranking member would 
participate with me in a brief colloquy on this subject.
  Mr. KOHL. On behalf of our home State of Wisconsin, where 97 percent 
of the U.S. ginseng crop is produced, 85 percent of the country's 
ginseng being grown in Marathon County alone, I will happily engage in 
a colloquy.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Now that we have this ginseng labeling law on the 
books, enforcement action is needed. Many of my constituents are 
concerned that some domestic and foreign companies continue to label 
and market certain products as ginseng when they are in fact a 
distinctly different product. We must give ginseng growers the support 
they deserve by enforcing this law that also helps consumers make 
informed choices about the ginseng that they consume.
  The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for assuring 
that dietary supplements in this country are safe, sanitary, 
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled. Is it your understanding 
that this bill contains the resources for FDA to carry out such 
enforcement action?
  Mr. KOHL. That is my understanding.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my friend, Mr. Kohl, the Senior Senator from 
Wisconsin.


            USDA Efforts to Eradicate the Emerald Ash Borer

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that S. 1427 acknowledges the 
problem posed by the emerald ash borer. To date, tens of thousands of 
Ash trees in my home State of Michigan have died due ``to infestations 
of the emerald ash borer,'' and I am glad that this bill provides $1 
million for efforts to remove Ash trees that have been claimed by this 
invasive species.
  I appreciate the efforts made by the Agricultural Appropriations 
Subcommittee to acknowledge and address

[[Page S14148]]

the devastation caused by the emerald ash borer in Michigan, Ohio and 
Ontario, Canada, and which is threatening to spread.
  The provision of funds contained in this legislation will assist 
local communities in removing trees that have been killed by this 
invasive species. It is also my understanding that USDA's Animal Plant 
Health Inspection Service--APHIS--provided $14.8 million in fiscal year 
2003 funds to assist with efforts to contain and eradicate the emerald 
ash borer.
  Michigan's Governor, Jennifer Granholm, has requested that USDA 
provide $33 million in fiscal year 2004 funds for further efforts to 
combat this pest. These funds are vitally needed; however, efforts to 
combat the emerald ash borer should not be dependent upon the provision 
of emergency funds each new fiscal year. USDA must develop a multi-year 
plan for eradicating the ash borer.
  Mr. KOHL. I agree. The continued presence of the emerald ash borer 
threatens the ash tree population not only in Michigan, but across our 
nation. USDA should develop a clear plan for eradicating the ash borer. 
The committee shares your concerns about the presence of the emerald 
ash borer in Michigan and other states and asks that APHIS provide 
Congress with a report on the plan and estimated cost of eradicating 
the pest.


                  wine grape foundation block funding

  Mrs. MURRAY. Senator Kohl, in fiscal year 2003, Congress provided 
$150,000 to the Agriculture Research Service in Prosser, WA, to help 
with the development of a foundation block of certified ``clean'' 
rootstock.
  The rapid expansion of the Washington wine industry has raised 
concerns that new vineyards will use non-certified, diseased rootstock 
that could economically devastate the Washington wine industry.
  I recently learned that ARS did not dedicate all of the fiscal year 
2003 funding to this project, but other research projects as well.
  The fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill provides 
$150,000 to ARS to continue this project. The intent of this project is 
clear and not subject to interpretation by ARS. I ask that the record 
reflect that this funding is to develop a wine grape foundation block. 
In addition, I ask that the conference report accompanying the 
agriculture bill include language directing ARS to allocate this 
funding in a manner consistent with congressional intent.
  Senator Kohl, do you agree with the intent of this project?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes, Senator Murray, I agree. Thank you for bringing this 
issue to my attention. I will work in conference to do what I can to 
support your request and to include language in the final statement of 
managers.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you Senator Kohl for your support on this issue. 
This project is critical to the long-term health and viability of my 
State's wine grape growers and vintners.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Resource conservation is an essential element 
of our nation's agriculture programs that has proven to be very popular 
with farmers and ranchers. The incentives incorporated in programs such 
as the Farmland Protection Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, 
and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, have not only 
heightened the awareness and value of good conservation practices, but 
they have made it possible for families to constitute limited 
production and be compensated for protecting fragile resources. The 
success of these programs is that family farms can retain their 
economic viability and continue to contribute to the stability of 
communities throughout the nation.
  Conservation programs have touched on many fragile resources, but 
have not sufficiently encouraged the protection of the historic 
heritage that is embodied in historic buildings, structures, objects, 
and archaeological sites on farmland. Congress has declared that the 
spirit and direction of the nation is reflected in its historic 
heritage, and that the preservation of this heritage is in the public 
interest. Therefore, I believe we must work together to protect our 
common heritage embedded on these private lands.
  Senator Kohl, today I am requesting a report to the U.S. Congress 
from the United States Department of Agriculture evaluating their 
conservation programs under the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
and all other USDA county-based farm agencies with the objective of 
determining what affirmative and programmatic actions are being taken 
to conserve and protect archaeological and historical resources on 
agricultural lands. Furthermore, this report should also provide or 
suggest new methods or program modifications to the conservation 
programs which will increase the protection of historical and 
archaeological resources on agricultural lands and help determine the 
manner in which these type of lands can be included within the overall 
goal of natural resources protection.
  Finally, I am requesting that this report be completed within 120 
days of enactment of the Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture appropriations 
bill.
  Senator Kohl, will you support this request and work towards its 
inclusion in the final conference report of the fiscal year 2004 
Agriculture appropriations bill?
  Mr. KOHL. Senator Nelson, I appreciate you bringing this matter to my 
attention. I will work to include this provision during conference 
negotiations of this bill.


                 chino basin manure management project

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a colloquy?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am pleased to do so.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my distinguished colleague and the chairman 
of the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee. As the committee 
completes its work on the floor and heads to conference to finalize 
this important bill, I want to call the committee's attention to a 
unique project in California that has national implications.
  I want to call the committee's attention to the Chino Basin Manure 
Management Project in Southern California. This project is funded 
through the National Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  In fiscal year 2002, this committee provided $10 million for the 
Chino Basin project. Half of the money was spent for regional flood 
control, and the other half went to the development and construction of 
an anaerobic digester facility.
  The Manure Management Project is cosponsored by the Inland Empire 
Utilities Agency and the Milk Producers Council, both in San Bernardino 
County. The purpose of this project was to explore an innovative and 
effective solution to the problems associated with vast quantities of 
animal pollution which naturally results from large-scale dairy 
operations.
  This project collects manure from several thousand local dairy cows, 
transporting it to a local facility equipped with an industrial size 
anaerobic digester. The animal waste is placed in a closed, sealed vat, 
where it is then simultaneously starved of oxygen and heated for 
several days.
  Under normal circumstances, we would typically think of manure as 
both a cost and a pollutant. However, the end result of this project is 
the development of two marketable products: methane gas and organic 
fertilizer. The methane is used in the production of electricity, and 
the project's proponents are currently in the process of developing a 
market for the resulting fertilizer.
  In addition to creating marketable methane and fertilizer, this 
project also produces an impressively long list of additional benefits, 
including improved air quality, reduced groundwater contamination, and 
even improved health of the cows at the dairy.
  A recent estimate indicates that if all the manure in the Chino area 
was processed in anaerobic digesters this would eventually produce 
approximately 50 megawatts of renewable electric power per year. Even 
more significantly, it will also remove significant amounts of air 
pollutants. For example, the current operational digester removes 
15,000 tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent from the atmosphere per 
year. The next anaerobic digester built because of its larger capacity 
will likely triple that amount to about 45,000 tons of CO2 
or its equivalent per year.
  The Inland Empire Utility Agency and the Milk Producers Council are 
seeking funding to expand and refine the application of this and 
similar technologies. The cost of a second digester is approximately $9 
million dollars, and they have already received a

[[Page S14149]]

commitment from the California Energy Commission for the balance of the 
necessary funds.
  The Inland Empire Utility Agency and the Milk Producers Council are 
requesting that a $5 million grant be inserted into this appropriations 
bill.
  The first plant--a demonstration of this technology--was built on 
time and on budget, and is successfully operating today. Although the 
next phase of this project was contemplated as part of their original 
program, the National Resources Conservation Service has informed 
Inland Empire and the Milk Producers Council that funds are unavailable 
at this time.
  The National Resources Conservation Service highlights and salutes 
this project nationally, as this project has become a de facto 
``national demonstration project.'' Communities, water districts, 
dairymen, and even Indian tribes from across the Nation have gone to 
Chino to examine this unique partnership between the Chino Basin dairy 
industry and the local water agency.
  The Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Milk Producers Council's 
request deserves consideration by this committee in the pending 
appropriations bill. I ask the subcommittee chairman to consider this 
project as the appropriations bill is finalized.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for calling this to the committee's 
attention.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I hasten to point out another 
attribute of this project. As the water quality problems on the Santa 
Ana River are gradually resolved--and this project certainly 
contributes to resolving some of those problems--the supply of clean, 
usable water in Southern California is expanded. It is yet another way 
to ensure that the Quantification Settlement Agreement on the Colorado 
River is implemented in a timely and meaningful manner. Utah and the 
rest of the Colorado Basin States should welcome these types of 
investment in Southern California.
  Mr. BENNETT. Again, I thank the Senator for bringing this issue to my 
attention. I look forward to working with my colleague on this issue in 
conference.


               minority farmers and civil rights at usda

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about 
the status of minority farmers in the United States and to indicate my 
hope to the chairman and the ranking member that the final Agriculture 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 will include meaningful 
increases in programs that are priorities to the minority farm 
community.
  It is no secret that minority farmers in the United States are an 
endangered species. In the early 1920s, African Americans owned between 
16 million and 19 million acres of land, most of it in the rural South, 
which includes my home State of Arkansas. At that time, there were over 
920,000 farms operated by African Americans in the United States.
  However, by the end of the 20th century, African Americans owned only 
a quarter of the land that they had held a century prior, and the 
number of African American farmers in the United States had fallen from 
a peak of almost 1 million to only about 20,000. Scholars estimate 
that, between 1920 and 1940, African Americans were losing land at a 
rate of 350,000 acres annually.
  Sadly, USDA has done little to address this issue. In fact, many 
people believe, and I am inclined to agree with them that, if anything, 
USDA has contributed to the problem. Black farmers have long alleged 
discrimination at the hands of the Department of Agriculture. Because 
of this discrimination, thousands of farmers were denied access to USDA 
loans and other programs and many lost their farms because of the 
competitive disadvantage at which this placed them.
  In the 1990s, these farmers filed a class action suit against USDA 
seeking redress for this discrimination. As a result of this suit, USDA 
and the claimants entered into a consent decree. Under that agreement, 
hundreds of millions of dollars have been paid to African American 
farmers who were discriminated against by the Department of 
Agriculture.
  While this case was a start, it can never fully compensate black 
farmers for their losses. In addition, it did little to address the 
needs of minority farmers--African Americans, Hispanics, and others, 
who continue to seek to farm today. We can't just look back. We must 
look forward to keep minorities in farming and to encourage others to 
begin farming. We can start with the appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2004. Comparing the bill before us today with the bill passed by 
the House of Representatives, I must say that the House-passed bill is 
better for minority farmers. Recognizing that money is tight and that 
the chair and ranking member have worked arduously to craft a 
bipartisan bill, I have decided not to offer an amendment to this bill 
to increase funding for programs that affect minority farmers, such as 
the Office of Civil Rights and the 2501 Outreach Program for Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmers. However, it is my sincere hope that as this bill 
goes to conference committee, the chair and the ranking member will 
work with their counterparts in the House of Representatives to craft a 
final bill that closely resembles the House bill with regards to 
minority farmers and civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks made by the 
Senator from Arkansas and also express my support for increased funding 
for civil rights and for minority farmers at the Department of 
Agriculture.
  In the most recent farm bill, the Committee on Agriculture once again 
took up the issue of civil rights at USDA. Dismayed by continued 
complaints from both clients and employees about the inhospitable 
atmosphere towards minorities at USDA, the farm bill created, for the 
first time, the position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. That 
position has been filled for several months now, and I am hopeful that 
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights will be able to create 
positive movement in this regard. It is past time for USDA to shed the 
shameful nickname, ``The Last Plantation,'' that many have given it due 
to its civil rights atmosphere.
  The House recognized the necessity of doing more for socially 
disadvantaged farmers and USDA employees earlier this year when it 
passed by voice vote an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations 
bill that increased funding for several important civil rights 
functions. First, it increased funding for the Office of Civil Rights 
by several million dollars. These additional funds will enable the 
Department to clear out its backlog of hundreds of civil rights 
complaints, many of which stagnate for months and months. We need to 
wipe the slate clean. As long as USDA is unable to deal with this 
backlog it will be difficult for it to concentrate on its primary task; 
preventing such complaints from arising in the first place and making 
the Department of Agriculture hospitable to all farmers regardless of 
race, sex, or creed.
  The House-passed amendment also increased funding for the section 
2501 Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. Despite being the 
primary program by which to make USDA programs available to minority 
farmers, the section 2501 program has been flat-funded for several 
years. The Senate bill before us today provides a little over $3 
million for the section 2501 program. This modest increase over last 
year's funding is a commendable start, but it is not nearly enough. The 
House bill, on the other hand, increased funding by $5 million to a 
total of over $8 million. The level provided in the House bill is 
clearly more consistent with the need to reach out to minority and 
socially-disadvantaged farmers. I hope that the chairman and ranking 
member of the committee will agree to the House funding levels for this 
program in the conference committee.
  Mr. BENNETT. The concerns that my colleagues have raised in this 
regard are important ones and ones that I share. I will do all that I 
can to address their concerns about minority farmers and civil rights 
at USDA as we reconcile the Senate and House bills in conference.
  Mr. KOHL. I concur with the comments of my colleagues and pledge to 
work in conference to address their concerns relating to increased 
funding for the Office of Civil Rights and for the section 2501 Program 
for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers to the levels agreed to in the 
House-passed bill.

[[Page S14150]]

                         McGovern-Dole Food Aid

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture appropriations 
bill only includes $25 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food 
for Education and Child Nutrition Program. The Bush administration has 
said that $25 million is not a level adequate to achieve the objectives 
of this important program. I agree with the administration that $25 
million is woefully inadequate and would like to see the Senate fund 
this program at the $300 million level for which it was originally 
authorized. However, at a minimum, I contend that the Senate should 
accept the $56.8 million currently in the House bill.
  McGovern-Dole food aid is vitally important because it: one, provides 
humanitarian assistance by reducing incidence of hunger among the 
nearly 300 million chronically hungry school-age children and also 
promotes maternal, infant, and child nutrition programs for pregnant 
women, nursing mothers, infants and children five years old and under, 
two, enhances literacy and primary education by increasing school 
attendance of those 120 million school-age children who currently do 
not attend school--sixty percent of which are girls, and three, reduces 
terrorism by fostering goodwill toward the United States.
  I would like to know the chairman's position on funding for McGovern-
Dole food aid.
  Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate my colleague bringing this matter to my 
attention. I agree with my colleague that this is a vital international 
food aid program that provides much needed humanitarian assistance and 
increases school enrollment. Thus, I pledge to the Senator from Kansas 
that I will work in conference to secure the House level of $56.8 
million.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the distinguished chairman and look forward to 
working with him on this matter.


                 conservation cropping systems project

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I commend the leadership of the 
Appropriations Committee, and particularly Subcommittee Chairman 
Bennett and Senator Kohl for their work on this bill. I wanted to bring 
to the subcommittee's attention the lack of information on conservation 
cropping techniques in transitional climate areas.
  Conservation cropping systems have proven very effective in reducing 
soil erosion, saving moisture and increasing yields in arid regions of 
the country. Unfortunately, the adoption of this type of system has 
been difficult in climate transition areas where precipitation is more 
abundant and predictable because there was little or no immediate 
economic advantage to doing so. Efforts are getting underway to study 
the use of conservation cropping techniques in southeastern North 
Dakota, northeastern South Dakota and western Minnesota, a transition 
area between subhumid and semiarid climates. The goal of the study 
would be to identify conservation rotations, cover crops, seeding 
techniques, and residue management practices that would make 
conservation tillage acceptable and profitable in these climate 
transition areas. It is my hope that in conference a small Federal 
investment could be directed to this important study.
  Mr. DORGAN. The southeast region of North Dakota is very unique. It 
has one of the largest concentrations of wetlands. As a result, most of 
the research that has been conducted on conservation cropping systems 
does not adapt well to this region. Crops in this region can range from 
flax to alfalfa to edible peas to corn to wheat. Further, previous 
studies have not included many of the crops that can be grown in this 
region or shown how different cropping systems can be made profitable. 
With the high cost of crop inputs and low commodity prices, producers 
are looking for ways to make a profit. This study will provide 
producers with a very good tool to measure one crop rotation against 
another, thereby increasing their profitability.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleagues from North Dakota for bringing this 
issue to our attention. I agree that such a study on conservation 
cropping systems in transitional climate areas would be very 
beneficial, particularly for farmers, and I would be happy to try to 
assist you in conference.


                           amendment no. 2088

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to Senators Akaka and Kohl, I would 
like to clarify a specific matter related to amendment no. 2088 to S. 
1427 concerning the protection of downed animals. First of all, I 
applaud their efforts to protect this Nation's food supply and minimize 
the suffering of nonambulatory animals. The clarification I have 
concerns animals raised by farmers and then custom processed so that 
all of the meat and meat products from that animal will be for the 
farmer's personal use. I understand that this amendment does not affect 
a Federally inspected facility's ability to engage in this type of 
processing. Am I correct that consistent with 21 U.S.C. 623(a), this 
section does not affect the ability of establishments at which 
inspection occurs under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 601, 
to slaughter animals or prepare meat or meat food products on a custom 
basis where the animal is raised by the person and the meat and meat 
products are for the exclusive use of the person and the person's 
household, nonpaying guests, and employees?
  Mr. AKAKA. That my understanding.
  Mr. KOHL. That is my understanding.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you for that clarification.


                        asian long-horned beetle

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished 
ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the 
ranking member knows, on September 4, 2003, the Asian long-horned 
beetle was discovered in Woodbridge, Ontario, and the area is under 
quarantine as the Canadians try to eradicate the infestations. Despite 
the quarantine in Ontario, the Asian long-horned beetle presents a real 
threat to Michigan. Currently, there are 180 trash trucks from Ontario 
that are sent to Michigan's landfills every day. Despite the fact that 
it is illegal to dump yard waste in Michigan's landfills, these trash 
trucks have been found to contain this illegal waste. According to a 
September 22, 2003 report by the Michigan Department of Environmental 
Quality, MDEQ, entitled, ``Report on Waste Inspections at Michigan 
Landfills,'' more than 25 percent of the Ontario waste inspected 
contained yard waste. Waste originating in Ontario had the highest 
percentage of loads containing yard waste of all out-of-state waste 
that comes into Michigan, despite Michigan's prohibition. Our Michigan 
communities are extremely concerned that APHIS has not thoroughly 
examined the potential threat of infestation that these Canadian trash 
trucks present.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join the junior Senator from Michigan in 
her concern for this potentially devastating problem. The Canadian yard 
waste, which includes tree branches and trimmings, poses a serious 
threat of spreading the Asian long-horned beetle to Michigan. According 
to the USDA, these beetles lay their eggs in grooves that they chew 
into the tree's branches and trunk. The beetle requires 1 to 2 years to 
completely develop from an egg to an adult and feeds on the host tree 
during that time. Branches and tree scraps brought into Michigan as 
yard waste could contain beetle eggs and larvae that are embedded in 
the bark. The Asian long-horned beetle is extremely destructive to 
hardwood trees, particularly maple, poplar and willow trees. Michigan's 
tree population has already been severely damaged by the spread of the 
emerald ash borer beetle, which has killed over 6 million trees in 
Southeast Michigan and caused over $162 million in damage. The USDA 
must act immediately to prevent another devastating infestation, the 
Asian long-horned beetle, from spreading into Michigan.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from 
Michigan and concur with them that this is a problem that must be 
immediately addressed. I will work in conference to include in the 
statement of managers language requiring APHIS to do a comprehensive 
review of their procedures and regulations, and report to Congress by 
January 1, 2004, on whether or not these regulations and procedures are 
adequate to prevent the Asian long-horned beetle from entering into 
Michigan in Canadian trash trucks.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee.

[[Page S14151]]

  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee.


                         phytophthora root rot

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the ranking member of 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the ranking member 
knows, phytophthora root rot is destroying crops and ravaging soil 
throughout the State of Michigan. Many growers are reporting major 
losses, despite following recommended control strategies, and it is 
devastating our cucumber, pole bean and soybean crops. Michigan State 
University is examining ways to contain and eradicate root rot and they 
need $184,000 to conduct this critical research. Would the 
distinguished ranking member work with us in conference to obtain this 
critical funding?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Michigan in asking 
the distinguished ranking member to give this important project 
consideration in conference. Phytophthora root rot is a fungus that is 
destroying crops and once the soil is infested, it must be taken out of 
production for 10 years. Currently, methyl bromide, which has been used 
by fresh market growers to control the disease, is scheduled to be 
phased out in 2005. New research is needed to develop tools that can 
effectively contain and eradicate this devastating disease.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from 
Michigan, and I will be happy to work with them in conference to obtain 
funding for this critical phytophthora root rot research at Michigan 
State University.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask my colleagues from Utah and 
Wisconsin if they are aware of the great need to control erosion and 
sediment in the Great Lakes region.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am told that approximately 63 million tons of topsoil 
erodes from cropland in the Great Lakes basin each year, reducing 
agricultural productivity. I am willing to address this problem.
  Mr. DeWINE. In the past, this subcommittee has been very supportive 
of the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The 
Great Lakes Basin program is a federal--state partnership, and its goal 
is to protect and improve Great Lakes water quality by controlling 
erosion and sedimentation; limiting the input of associated nutrients 
and toxic contaminants; and minimizing off-site sources of damages to 
harbors, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational facilities 
and the basin's system of public works.
  Mr. KOHL. The chairman and I understand the importance of this 
program to the Great Lakes region, and we will do what we can to 
support the House funding allocation for this program in conference.


       grape genomics research center and viticulture consortium

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill and to commend the 
leadership of the subcommittee for crafting this bill under very 
difficult financial constraints.
  I wish to thank the subcommittee for recognizing the importance of 
the winegrape and wine industry for the U.S. economy and the economy of 
California. Winegrapes account for two-thirds of the total U.S. grape 
crop. Furthermore, grapes are the highest value fruit crop in the U.S. 
and are the seventh largest agricultural crop in our nation. For my 
home State of California, the winegrape industry produces $33 billion 
for the economy, making winegrapes the State's largest agricultural 
crop. Yet, unlike most of our Nation's largest crops, winegrapes 
receive no direct farm subsidies.
  I would like to ask Ranking Member Kohl about two items in this 
legislation that involve cooperative research efforts that are 
essential to the future of the winegrape and wine industry. First, the 
House legislation includes $3 million in ARS funding for a Grape 
Genomics Research Center at the University of California at Davis. It 
is important that this funding level be maintained in the final version 
of this bill. Funding for such projects is crucial since cooperative 
research has been behind the success of the winegrape industry. 
Investment in research must continue if we are to withstand the rigid 
competition from our world neighbors who would love to replace our 
industry with their own products. This can only be done with the 
cooperation of the U.S. Congress to ensure the American wine industry 
has the necessary resources to continue the cutting edge research and 
development that has kept this industry competitive.
  In California, winegrapes are grown in areas being rapidly developed 
into urban uses. If our winegrape and wine industry is to continue to 
thrive, we must be more efficient with our land; we must produce grapes 
more resistant to diseases; and we must be good neighbors to the 
surrounding environment. This proposed $3 million investment in 
viticulture research will ensure that already successful collaborative 
efforts among the grape and wine industry, universities, and USDA is 
continued in the years to come. It is a wonderful investment into our 
industry's future. I ask Senator Kohl that in conference with our House 
colleagues, we make every effort to ensure this important funding in 
the House bill is kept in the final version of the fiscal year 2004 
Agricultural appropriations bill.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to respond to 
the Senator from California by saying that I appreciate the value of 
sound research programs that use a combination of the expertise of the 
industry involved, the best scientists in our universities, and the 
outstanding scientific resources within the Department of Agriculture. 
As Senator Feinstein noted, we have fiscal restraints with which we 
must abide. I assure the Senator that I will bring an open mind to the 
conference and will try to craft the best possible legislation.
  I certainly will do what I can in conference to see that this 
research continues, and I will carefully consider the $3 million 
proposed for the Grape Genomics Center at UC Davis.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, once again, I thank the subcommittee, 
and I wish to raise one more issue that relates to getting the best 
possible use of the research dollars. Both the Senate and House bills 
include funding for the Viticulture Consortium at last year's level of 
$1.8 million from CSREES. I remain hopeful that this funding level can 
be increased to $2.5 million. The Viticulture Consortium is a truly 
unique and effective research program that addresses unmet national 
research needs important to the winegrape growing industry. The 
consortium is an active partnership of Federal, State, and industry 
resources which enhances research coordination, improves research 
efficiency, and eliminates duplication of effort. This is a 
collaborative program administered by Cornell University, Penn State 
University, and the University of California. Research proposals have 
been received from 20 States and research priorities are developed by a 
national network of key industry research and extension representatives 
known as the American Viticulture and Enology Research Network, AVERN. 
This type of collaborative program can serve as a model for research 
involving other commodities.
  Again, recognizing the limits facing us, I ask the leaders of the 
subcommittee to work with me to provide a modest increase in the 
funding level for the Viticulture Consortium in this bill.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate this unique effort to use a cooperative 
approach to get the most output out of each scarce research dollar 
appropriated to the winegrape and wine industry. I also look forward to 
working with the Senator on this issue, not only in the upcoming 
conference, but also in the future to see how the Viticulture 
Consortium can continue to expand on its excellent work.


                           amendment no. 2090

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I comment on the Hatch-Harkin-Durbin 
amendment No. 2090 adopted by the Senate yesterday. This action taken 
by the Senate is an important step in our continuing efforts to assure 
that Americans have access to high quality dietary supplements to 
maintain and improve their health.

[[Page S14152]]

  Over 158 million Americans take dietary supplements to maintain and 
improve their health. From vitamin C to calcium to glucosamine to beta 
carotene, there is a full range of healthful supplements that are part 
of the daily lives of people all over this country.
  Consumer expenditures on these products reached a reported $17.1 
billion in 2000, double the amount spent just 6 years earlier. And, 
according to a recent report by the Food and Drug Administration, the 
use of dietary supplements is likely to grow due to factors such as the 
aging of the baby-boom generation, increased interest in self-
sufficiency, and advances in science that are uncovering new 
relationships between diet and disease.
  In response to efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to 
inappropriately cut off consumers' access to some supplements, in 1994, 
the House and Senate unanimously approved the Dietary Supplement Health 
and Education Act, DSHEA. I was pleased to have played a role in 
crafting this important legislation. This law balanced continued 
consumer access to vitamins, minerals and other dietary supplements, 
increased scientific research on the benefits and risks of supplements 
and needed consumer protections.
  DSHEA provides a number of important consumer protections. It 
requires that claims made on supplement labels, packaging and 
accompanying material be ``truthful, non-misleading and 
substantiated.'' In addition, the act prohibits manufacturers from 
making claims that products are intended to diagnose, treat, cure or 
prevent a disease.
  DSHEA also provides for good manufacturing practice standards setting 
requirements for potency, cleanliness and stability of products. It 
requires that manufacturers submit adequate information as to the 
safety of any new ingredients contained in dietary supplements before 
those products can be sold.
  DSHEA also provided the Federal Government a number of avenues for 
the removal of unsafe dietary supplements from the marketplace. If the 
FDA determines that a product poses an unreasonable risk when taken as 
directed, the product can be removed from the market. If the Secretary 
determines that a product poses an imminent hazard to the public 
health, he can remove the product from sale.
  Finally, in order to promote expanded scientific research on the 
benefits and health effects of dietary supplements, DSHEA mandated the 
establishment of the Office of Dietary Supplements within the National 
Institutes of Health. This research is crucial to expanding reliable 
information to the American people.
  Unfortunately, despite some recent improvement, the history of 
implementation of DSHEA by the FDA has been poor. The Food and Drug 
Administration has failed to use the many tools provided by DSHEA. It 
has failed to carefully review claims for truthfulness. It has failed 
to put in place new good manufacturing practice standards. It has 
failed to aggressively remove from the market illegal street drug 
knock-offs and other products which are in clear violation of DSHEA 
requirements.
  Part of the problem has been resources. The FDA needs adequate 
resources to appropriately implement and enforce DSHEA. Congress has 
responded by regularly providing funds over the last several years 
beyond those requested in the President's budget, reaching $9.7 million 
in fiscal year 2003.
  The amendment we approved yesterday would increase funding for 
implementation and enforcement of DSHEA by at least 17.5 percent. It 
requires FDA to spend no less than $11.4 million for this purpose, $1 
million more than requested by the administration. This is a 
substantial and necessary increase. I would like to see even more 
devoted to this purpose. In fact, S. 1538, legislation Senator Hatch 
and I introduced earlier this year would increase FDA funding to $20 
million next year, rising to $65 million per year within 5 years. We 
will continue to work to gain adoption of this more aggressive 
approach.
  I thank the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations subcommittee for their willingness to work with us and 
gain approval of this important consumer protection amendment. I also 
want to express my support for an amendment Senator Durbin offered to 
expedite the FDA's action on dietary supplements containing ephedra. 
The FDA should make a decision promptly on this matter and it should be 
based on sound science.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, prior to the 1996 farm bill, the annual 
cost-share assistance payment limitation for the Agricultural 
Conservation Program, ACP, was $3,500. With the advent of the 
Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, in 1996, the annual 
cost-share assistance payment limit was increased to $10,000 per year.
  EQIP also instituted another change, rather than single year 
agreements, conservation agreements under EQIP were set at a minimum of 
5 years to improve conservation benefits and increase farm payments. 
Hence, the 1996 law set a 5-year payment limitation of $50,000 for 
those rare instances in which a participant received the maximum 
$10,000 annual payment each of 5 years.
  Between 1996 and 2002, the national average EQIP cost share amount 
per farm per 5-year contract was less than $10,000, or less than 20 
percent of the $50,000 payment limitation.
  Between 1996 and 2002, for animal waste storage structures, one of 
the most expensive practices eligible for EQIP assistance, the national 
average per farm per 5-year contract amount has been $13,573, also 
considerably below the $50,000 payment limitation at that time.
  The 2002 farm bill increased the payment limitation nine-fold to 
$450,000 over the 6-year life of the farm bill.
  The $450,000 limit was arrived at in the House-Senate conference 
committee. The Senate version of the farm bill had a 5-year $150,000 
limitation. The House bill had a $200,000 limitation.
  Amazingly, on the very last day of the farm bill conference the 
payment limit was increased to $450,000, three times greater than what 
the Senate had approved. This new number showed up out of nowhere, with 
virtually no discussion or debate in public.
  The Senate bill contained an important provision related to the 
payment limit. All payments were made directly attributable to real 
persons by Social Security number. This direct attribution provision 
was intended to prevent participants from forming dummy corporations 
and partnerships for the purpose of getting around the payment limit 
and collecting multiple payments.
  This provision was retained in the conference committee, so that at 
least the $450,000 limit was to apply to an individual or an entity 
regardless of the number of farming sites in an operation or the number 
or type of business arrangements the EQIP operator was engaged in.
  In promulgating rules and guidance for the implementation of EQIP, 
however, USDA has decided to allow the $450,000 to be multiplied by the 
number of partners in a single farming operation. This essentially 
makes the limitation meaningless, since it allows business structures 
to be arranged to collect multiple payments.
  While no single person could collect more than $450,000, relatives, 
employees, farmhands and others could be made partners that each could 
collect up to the maximum amount.
  Farmer demand for EQIP remained very high throughout the 1996 farm 
bill period and its $50,000 multi-year limitation. Demand outstripped 
funding.
  Congress responded in 2002 by increasing total funding for EQIP five 
fold, and I was heavily involved with that effort.
  However, by simultaneously increasing the payment limit nine fold, 
the new $1 billion per year funding level may not result in more 
farmers being served, which was Congress' intention.
  The ranking systems in many States being put in place to determine 
who wins EQIP contracts and who goes on the waiting list appears to be 
favoring the large farm/large contract applicants.
  My amendment would scale the payment limit back to $300,000. This is 
still double the amount passed by the Senate in 2002, and more than 
adequate for 97.8 percent of EQIP participants.
  My amendment does not scale back funding for EQIP. Rather, it 
provides that dollars appropriated by this bill cannot be used to pay 
USDA salaries and expenses to operate the EQIP program with payments 
greater than $300,000 per agricultural operation.

[[Page S14153]]

  Adoption of this amendment will allow more farmers to participate in 
the program in the coming year. Adoption of the amendment will result 
in a fairer distribution of dollars within the program. Adoption of 
this amendment will prevent EQIP resources from being gobbled up by a 
few large contracts to mega farms.
  This is a fair compromise, a good compromise. It provides access to 
the program by all types of farms and all sizes of farms, but it puts a 
limit on the amount of taxpayer support any one operation can receive.
  If we do not pass this amendment, I think by the time of the next 
farm bill there will be lots of media attention focused on how this 
environmental quality cost share program has become a new subsidy 
program, paying out six and seven figure checks, for the Nation's 
biggest operations. And there will be questions about why an 
environmental program is leading to concentration and consolidation.
  A $450,000 payment limit has no effect on 98.9 percent of all 
livestock operations. A $300,000 payment limit has no effect on 97.8 
percent of all livestock operations. That means my amendment only 
affects 1.1 percent of livestock operations.
  The 1.1 percent of mega-operations will still be eligible for 
$300,000. They just will not be able to take such a big piece of such a 
small pie. I do not think it is unreasonable to reduce full funding for 
the largest 1.1 percent of livestock operations so that more family 
farmers can participate.
  So what I am saying is let's be careful. Let's be balanced. Let's 
increase the payment limitation, and avoid a ``sky's the limit'' 
approach.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to provide a few brief 
comments on the Agriculture appropriations bill and to also make a few 
comments regarding my friend and colleague, the distinguished new 
chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Utah.
  The chairman has done an outstanding job putting this bill together 
under a difficult budget allocation, and I congratulate him for his 
work.
  I also want to make a few comments regarding several programs in this 
bill that are of particular interest to me in my role as the chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee.
  I urge the chairman and the members of the subcommittee who will sit 
on the conference to support as much funding as possible for USDA's 
homeland security funding request and the Dole-McGovern International 
School Lunch Program.
  Both of these programs are vital to our ongoing war against 
terrorism.
  The USDA homeland security funds will support the rapid response 
animal and plant health diagnostics networks established last year by 
USDA.
  These networks will allow us to respond quickly to an animal or 
disease outbreak that occurs, whether naturally occurring or 
intentionally introduced.
  While this may not seem like a serious risk, I can tell you that the 
threat is real. We know some of the 9/11 hijackers had agriculture 
training, and the former Soviet Union had weaponized many of these 
diseases. The intentional introduction of any of these diseases would 
have a devastating impact on both the agriculture and national 
economies.
  Regarding the Dole-McGovern program, it often provides the only meal 
that many students--particularly those in the Middle East--receive each 
day.
  Young girls go to school so they can receive these meals. They gain 
an education, they broaden their horizons, and it will eventually help 
to bring greater stability to that part of the world.
  Young boys go to schools where they can receive a meal and 
instruction in math and science instead of radicalism and extremism. 
Many terrorist recruiters get their youngest members through the offer 
of a warm, nutritious meal each day.
  We must give these students the opportunity to be fed and get a basic 
education, rather than spending their days learning how to fire an AK-
47. Thus, I urge support for these programs as this bill moves to 
conference.
  Before yielding the floor, I also wish to make a few comments 
regarding our new subcommittee chairman.
  When I first heard he would become chairman of the subcommittee, I 
didn't know whether to congratulate him or send him a sympathy card.
  I have spent the better part of the years I have had the privilege to 
serve Kansas in the House and Senate wandering around in what you might 
call the agriculture policy pasture. For a short time, I even served as 
the head of the sometimes powerful House Agriculture Committee.
  What my ears in that pasture have taught me is that if you spend much 
time dealing with agriculture policy, you often end up feeling like 
your are straddling the barbed wire fence. The issues are never easy.
  There are often strong and very real policy differences among the 
farm groups and varying regions of the country. They are some of the 
most difficult issues I have ever faced, and they have certainly been 
known to tie this bill up in past years.
  Earlier, it appeared that many of those issues would bog the bill 
down again this year.
  However, as we would say in Dodge City, he took the bull by the horns 
and charged ahead. I know that it has not been easy, but I also want 
the chairman to know that I think he has done a remarkable job.
  He managed to balance a severely reduced budget allocation in a 
manner that was fair to all members and regions of the country, and he 
has worked to find the middle ground on many issues. As a result of his 
efforts, we will spend only 1 or 2 days on the bill this year, instead 
of the week or more we spent in recent years.
  He has taken what is often a thankless job and has performed 
admirably. He deserves both the thanks and praise of the Senate.
  I say to the chairman, job well done.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the agriculture appropriations bill funds 
several important programs at the Department of Agriculture, the Food 
and Drug Administration, and other domestic food services provided 
through the Department of Health and Human Services. These funding 
programs are critically important to our Nation's farmers, families, 
and children.
  Considering the importance of this bill, and at this critical time, I 
am once again greatly disappointed to report the amount of flagrant 
porkbarrel spending in this bill. This year's agriculture spending bill 
includes nearly $300 million in questionable earmarks. Despite the 
obvious need to eliminate the excessive special interest earmarks in 
the agriculture appropriations bill, the appropriators tacked on 395 of 
the usual garden-variety, special interest earmarks. Sadly, it appears 
that the porkbarrel ``business as usual'' attitude reigns once again.
  Let's take a look at some of the porkbarrel projects in this year's 
agriculture appropriations bill:
  An increase of $300,000 over the fiscal year 2003 level for research 
on alternative swine research;
  An increase of $1.4 million over the fiscal year 03 level for dairy 
forage research in Madison, WI;
  An increase of $1 million for research on taramix control using China 
beetles in Reno, NV;
  A $100,000 increase for the development of commercially approved 
vaccines for catfish in Auburn, IL;
  An increase of $450,000 over the fiscal year 03 level for a 
laboratory in Parlier, CA, to study the Glassy-winged sharpshooter and 
Pierce's disease;
  A $150,000 increase to study grape genetics in Geneva, NY;
  An additional $300,000 for potato storage research in Madison, WI;
  An additional $200,000 for research on seafood waste at the 
University of Alaska;
  An additional $300,000 for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in 
Charleston, SC;
  An unrequested earmark of $631,000 for alternative salmon products in 
Alaska;
  An earmark of $358,000 for alternative tobacco uses in Maryland;
  An earmark of $442,000 for apple fire blight in Michigan and New 
York;
  An earmark of $278,000 for asparagus technology and production in the 
State of Washington;
  An earmark of $200,000 for berry research in Alaska;
  $600,000 for cool season legume research in Idaho, Washington and 
North Dakota;
  $234,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding studies in 
New Jersey;

[[Page S14154]]

  A whopping $2 million for exotic pet diseases in California;
  $844,000 for soybean research in Illinois;
  $596,000 for peanut research in Alabama;
  $502,000 for wheat sawfly research in Montana;
  $450,000 for agricultural-based industrial lubricants in Iowa;
  $690,000 for agriculture waste utilization in WV--pretty fancy term 
for fertilizer;
  $150,000 for salmon quality standards in Alaska;
  $250,000 for the National Wild Turkey Federation, located in South 
Carolina;
  $300,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin;
  $2 million to address chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin;
  $250,000 to address chronic wasting disease in Utah--maybe we should 
study chronic wasting disease right here in Washington, because the 
amount of waste that goes on in this city has reached chronic levels, 
and that is stating it mildly;
  $1 million for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in Utah;
  $300,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in Nevada;
  $150,000 for beaver control in Kentucky;
  $225,000 for blackbird control in Kansas;
  $350,000 for evaluating native plant materials in Alaska;
  $600,000 for cranberry production in Massachusetts and Wisconsin.
  Here is the clincher: the report accompanying this bill directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to take all necessary measures to maximize and 
to provide a fair allocation of resources under the farm bill to the 
State of Alaska. This directive is seen as necessary because the 
committee is deeply disturbed that Alaska has largely been ignored thus 
far in the implementation of the farm bill passed in 2002. We certainly 
would not want Alaska to suffer from a lack of Federal dollars now 
would we?
  Even the reliable earmarks like shrimp aquaculture and peanut 
research are included. Shrimp aquaculture in Arizona and other states 
has been a consistent beneficiary of taxpayer dollars for 11 years, 
with this year's earmark being $4.2 million. Unfortunately, there is 
little explanation included to justify why targeted Federal dollars for 
earmarked projects are more important than other programs to protect 
food safety or more directly support farm programs in this bill.
  I am confident that many of my colleagues will maintain the 
importance of the need to fully fund these and many of the other 
projects in their respective States. That is fine. I do not fault them 
for it. In fact, let me state clearly, that I do not question the 
merits of these projects. Most of them, I am sure, are very important 
and worthy for Federal funds.
  It is the process with which I have a serious problem. The 
Appropriations Committee has effectively usurped the power of the 
authorizing committees and acts as one, all-powerful funding machine. 
Projects are often funded with little or no background study, and are 
approved after simply being requested by a fellow Senator. These same 
projects are directed to certain States and localities, completely 
circumventing the proper, competitive-based awards process. 
Additionally, the Appropriations Committee routinely uses directive 
language to force cabinet secretaries and agency heads to use scarce 
taxpayer dollars to fund members' pet projects, while not alloting them 
a single dime with which to fulfill the requirements imposed upon them 
by the appropriators.
  This spending spree is an outrage. As all of my colleagues know, CBO 
recently projected a potentially debilitating $480 billion deficit for 
2004. More importantly, we are at war. President Bush is poised to sign 
a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion for the ongoing military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of us has asked ourselves 
the same question: ``where is that money going to come from?'' I have 
an idea Mr. President. Let's start with this bill. Let's eliminate all 
of the unrequested earmarks, all of the special deals, all of the pork 
and all of the waste. Let's prove to the American taxpayer that we in 
Washington do not see them as simply a cash cow for our every financial 
whim.
  I urge my colleagues to work harder to curb our habit of funneling 
resources to parochial interests. Serving the public good must continue 
to be our mandate, and we can only live up to that charge by keeping 
the process free of unfair and unnecessary spending that unduly burdens 
the American taxpayer.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to speak on amendment 
2094, which was successfully added to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture 
appropriations bill yesterday. This amendment restores decreased 
funding for food stamp recipients in Alaska and Hawaii. Senators 
Stevens, Inouye, and Akaka have joined me in cosponsoring this 
amendment.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the cost of food items 
in Alaska and Hawaii, rather than researching the actual cost for these 
items. This method of estimating prices rather than researching prices 
led to a negative update that slashed benefits for the most vulnerable 
Alaskans and Hawaiians. The cuts in benefits, which took effect on 
October 1 of this year, essentially locks low income residents of 
Alaska and Hawaii into trying to buy this year's food at last year's 
prices. This just does not work.
  Please allow me to give a few examples about the actual cost of food 
around my State. In the general store in Port Graham, a remote village 
in the southcentral part of Alaska that is only accessible by boat or 
aircraft, one gallon of milk costs $11.59. In the village of Hoonah, 
which is a remote village located on an island west of our State 
capitol of Juneau, oranges cost nearly $5 a pound.
  Cutting the benefits for folks who are already paying far above the 
national average for food is unconscionable. This amendment, which is 
fully offset, says that the most vulnerable Alaskans and Hawaiians 
should not be stripped of their ability to put food on the table for 
their families.
  This amendment will make a real difference for those in Alaska and 
Hawaii who are working to become self-sufficient.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, last year Congress created the Public 
Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program within the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to help public television continue 
broadcasting to rural America in the digital age.
  As with any first year program there are some fine points that need 
to be ironed out. I am concerned about potential inequities in the 
distribution of funds that may result from the grant competition.
  I support awarding grants to public television stations that provide 
a broadcast service to rural populations, regardless of the location of 
their main transmitter. If a public television station's digital 
transmitter serves less than 500,000 people it should be considered 
rural and automatically given the highest score for rurality.
  The Department's use of Per capital Income, PCI, as a factor in 
determining an applicant's score is appropriate. However, I encourage 
the Department to weight PCI by population. Unless a score is weighted 
by population, it may result in an inequitable score if a small portion 
of the coverage area reaches an enclave of higher income viewers. 
Highest priority should be given to rurality and critical need in 
scoring applications. The weighted PCI score should not exceed 15 
percent of the total score.
  Furthermore, I believe that it would be beneficial for the Department 
to consult with public televisions stations through their national 
trade organization to assess the critical needs of the stations.
  Finally, I support the sue of funds for purchasing equipment 
necessary to allow local control over digital content and programming 
through the use of multicasting and datacasting technologies.
  I urge the Department to take the necessary steps to address these 
concerns.
  Mr. President, I would like to note in the Record some Utah projects 
that are important to reference as a Senate priority as we conference 
this bill with the House. It is important that report language be 
included noting an application that will be submitted to USDA for Rural 
Community Advancement Program funding and placing a priority upon its 
consideration. This RCAP application will be for potable water, fire

[[Page S14155]]

protections, and waste water extensions in Wellsville, Utah.
  I also note the importance of providing Natural Resource Conservation 
Service dollars for ditch, canal, and irrigation improvements in 
Wellsville, UT, as well as watershed protection funding under Public 
Law 566 for piping and lining the Washington Fields Canal in the 
vicinity of St. George and Washington County, UT. The WFC provides 
water to 4800 acres of farmland and is currently in very poor 
condition. Given the significant growth in this area and the listing of 
two endangered species in the river system, this funding is important 
to save water that is currently wasted and that could augment stream 
flows not only for the community, but as needed for environmental and 
conservation purposes.
  Finally, I am supportive of several projects to bring drinking water 
to Kane County residents through the Kane County Water Conservancy 
District in southern Utah. These projects, including the Strawberry/
Movie Ranch, Meadow View Heights, and Johnson Canyon projects, are 
necessary because of the ongoing drought in Utah, the degraded existing 
water systems, and increased demand caused by development. These 
projects are of great value, and I hope that the USDA would seriously 
consider applications for loans and grants under the authorized program 
for water and waste disposal. The Johnson Canyon project, in 
particular, is of great importance to Kane County residents. Due to the 
severe drought and other factors, the well that supplies water to 
Johnson Canyon residents has shown a dramatic decrease in the drinking 
water quality, and individuals are now faced with installing reverse 
osmosis systems for their drinking water. In fact, because of the high 
level of total dissolved solids in the water, the well has become an 
inferior source, and the State of Utah recommends that an inferior 
source should not be allowed if a better source of water is available. 
The district has found higher quality water, and this project will 
allow development of this important resource.
  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 a third time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. DOLE). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 444 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Ensign
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The bill (H.R. 2673), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House.
  The Presiding Officer (Mrs. Dole) appointed Mr. Bennett, Mr. Cochran, 
Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
Brownback, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Byrd 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Ms. SNOWE. 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________