[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 117 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10173-S10176]
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, 2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m.
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2744,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S10173, September 19, 2005, the following sentence
appeared: A bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agency programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes.
The online version has been corrected to read: A bill (H.R.
2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Pending:
Bennett-Kohl amendment No. 1726, to amend the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are pleased to present to the Senate
today the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the Department of
Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies. The bill is
before the Senate and is open for amendment or discussion and debate. I
am pleased to announce to the Senate that this reflects a lot of hard
work through hearings, examining the President's budget request for
these Departments for this next fiscal year.
The subcommittee was very capably managed by the distinguished
Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, who is chairman of this subcommittee.
The bill is within the budget authority outlined by the budget
resolution adopted by the Senate. Specifically, section 302(b) of the
budget resolution allocates $17.348 billion to this subcommittee's
authority for appropriations. It is within the outlay allocation of
$18.816 billion.
Throughout the past 7 months, the committee has reviewed suggestions
by Senators and others who are interested in the provisions of this
bill. The bill, as reported by the subcommittee, was approved
unanimously and submitted to the full committee. And after review by a
bipartisan group of Senators in that subcommittee, all of the Senators
in the full committee approved the allocation and the appropriation of
funds as reported in this bill.
We hope if any Senators have any suggestions for amendments, they
will bring them to the attention of the managers of the bill. We will
be happy to discuss those and review them. We hope we can complete
action on this bill at an early date. There are other bills that need
to be considered by the Senate, so we hope we can take up these
suggestions, and if there are amendments, we can vote on them
expeditiously.
We appreciate Senator Kohl, who is the ranking minority member of
this subcommittee, for his hard work and leadership in the development
of this bill. Their staff has worked with the staff on the majority
side in a cooperative way. This is a truly bipartisan effort. The
Senate appreciates that fact. I congratulate all who have been actively
involved in the development of the legislation.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture
appropriations bill. I applaud the chairman, Senator Cochran of
Mississippi, as well as Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for
their diligence on this spending bill and for ensuring that we have
arrived at as sound a financial package as was possible, given the
pending budget resolution's mandate to cut funds from USDA. At a time
of significant budgetary deficits and increasingly tight funding, I
worked with my colleagues to maintain a secure package for our
producers and rural communities, especially in light of a sorely
inadequate proposed USDA budget from the administration.
Producers and ranchers in my State of South Dakota and across the
Nation would simply prefer a fair price for what they produce at the
day's end. USDA programs and Federal funding are crucial for producers,
however, when markets are challenging and prices are depressed. The
farm bill that was hammered out in 2002 is a contract with rural
America, with South Dakota, to ensure adequate safety nets and
increased opportunities for rural communities. Numerous Members of
Congress, as well as agricultural organizations concerned with the
President's proposed budget, have pointed out that the farm bill has
already come in at $14 billion under its original projected costs.
At a time when producers need the contract negotiated by Congress and
signed into law by this President, the administration proposed limiting
the benefits promised to producers. We cannot balance the national
deficit on the backs of our Nation's producers. I voted to restore the
cuts that were made to the agricultural spending package, and I am
concerned for the adjustments that will be made to the agricultural
spending bill in light of the budget reconciliation instructions
advocated by this administration. I am concerned for the impact these
cuts will have on our rural communities and our producers.
There are several initiatives, however, that I am pleased to see in
this spending measure. I would like to touch on a few of those
priorities. As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
there are a few South-Dakota-specific items that I am pleased are
included in this measure. A few of them include funding for a
collaborative four-State effort led by South Dakota State University.
These funds will increase opportunities for South Dakota sheep and
cattle producers, building a better climate for livestock feeding in
our State. There is funding to work at South Dakota State University to
integrate pulse crops in crop rotations for South Dakota farmers. By
integrating pulse crops into rotations, farmers can increase profits
and improve soil quality.
There is some funding for the Seed Technology Center at South Dakota
State University. Funds will be used to conduct seed technology and
biotechnology research to benefit agricultural producers and consumers,
enhancing profitability for producers and resulting in better food
production.
Lastly, there is funding for the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks
Department to continue animal damage control work. The funds allow the
South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department to continue to meet the
growing demands of controlling predatory nuisance and diseased animals.
SDSU, a land grant university in Brookings, is significantly impacted
by Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and animal health Federal formula funds.
SDSU is an institution that makes enormous contributions to our
agricultural industry through the research initiatives that it
spearheads.
The President's proposed cuts on their research centers would have
greatly impacted this land grant institution's ability to function in
an effective manner. The President's proposed budget would have cut 45
faculty and staff at South Dakota State University, with a 25- to 50-
percent reduction in graduate students. These cuts would have resulted
in closure of at least one
[[Page S10174]]
SDSU research farm and at least one SDSU public service laboratory. I
worked with my colleagues and with the chairman to ensure that formula
funds were, in fact, reinstated at sufficient levels in this bill.
I continue to hear from constituents about the viability of the
Resource, Conservation, and Development Program, which was funded at
only $25 million in the President's proposed fiscal year 2006 budget.
The funding level is a substantial reduction from fiscal year 2005
funding at $51 million which was reinstated in the fiscal year 2006
spending package. Rural development initiatives are crucial for
creating additional opportunities. The Resource, Conservation, and
Development Program contributes tremendously to the economic growth in
rural communities, and limiting spending for this program limits
economic opportunities.
With respect to the animal identification program, $33 million was
devoted to this system last year via the omnibus spending bill, and
funds were again requested by the Bush administration. Given the size
and scale of this program, the projected costs, it is essential to
ensure that the Department of Agriculture includes stakeholders,
recognizing the concerns that producers have voiced for the
implementation of this system. The USDA needs to ensure adequate
communication with Congress in consideration of producers and ranchers.
I continue to hear, as well, from producers and ranchers who are
increasingly concerned with the Department's initiative to consolidate
Farm Service Agency service centers. Our 59 offices in South Dakota are
essential for providing face-to-face contact with producers. Not every
producer owns a computer. Expecting our farmers and ranchers to drive
further distances, especially considering the significant cost of fuel,
is not reasonable.
Implementation of our farm bill programs depends on the ability of
our FSA offices to communicate with ranchers and farmers. The
administration is doing a severe disservice to our agricultural
communities with such a drastic course of action.
Lastly, one of the key components I would like to address is the
mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling Program signed into law by
President Bush in this most recent farm bill. I was the primary author
of the mandatory country-of-origin labeling law that was included in
the 2002 farm bill. While I was disappointed to see the House include a
1-year delay for meat and meat products for the Country-of-Origin
Labeling Program in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations
bill, the Senate bill that was reported favorably out of committee
contains no such delay. This bill, in fact, contains roughly $3 million
for program implementation, which is a modest amount compared to the
necessary funding for other initiatives. Mandatory country-of-origin
labeling is a program appreciated by both consumers and producers. It
is not rocket science and, in fact, would be inexpensive to implement.
A recent poll by Public Citizen reflects, as well, that 85 percent of
consumers want to know where their food comes from. An additional 74
percent of consumers want this labeling program mandated. I continue to
hear from producers and ranchers in support of this program, and any
type of further delay would be a severe disservice for this right-to-
know initiative for our consumers and a marketing tool for producers,
as well as a great boost for our export markets.
Again, I thank Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for their
leadership on this agricultural spending package.
I thank Chairman Cochran, as well, for his leadership during a time
of obviously tight budget constraints.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the kind remarks
of the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and for his influence in
the process of developing the appropriate levels of funding in this
bill. We have tried very hard not only to stay within the budget
allocation but to try to identify priorities so that we put money where
the problems are and we deal with the realities of living on a farm,
trying to make a living, trying to meet the needs of communities around
the country for rural development projects. There is a wide range of
jurisdiction that comes under the authority of this subcommittee for
rural development, such as housing for low-income people who would
otherwise not be able to have housing. Also, we have important
components in the bill relating to food safety. We are confronted with
threats to our country from terrorist groups, so this makes us worry
about bioterrorism and being able to develop an infrastructure to
protect ourselves against any efforts to contaminate our food supply or
to wreak havoc in our communities with other terrorist activities that
relate to our food supply and its sources. For that purpose, we have
invested in research and other initiatives that will help us more
successfully deal with these challenges to help assure the American
public that our food supply is safe, wholesome, and nutritious.
In that connection, too, we realize this subcommittee has the
responsibility of funding the school feeding programs so that school
lunch programs, school breakfast programs, and others maintain healthy
diets for children in school throughout our country to bring to them
nutritious and safe foods.
We just reauthorized in the legislative Committee on Agriculture last
year a new law that authorizes the funding of these programs. We have
new initiatives, such as fruit and vegetable programs that help assure
that schools are able to access and provide a wide variety of healthy
foods for children in the public school systems of our country.
These are very important steps, building upon a legacy by previous
committees that have worked on these challenges and expanding the
benefits so that more and more students are reached by these programs.
We try to make sure the costs of these programs are controlled so
that people are not priced out of the system. We want to make sure that
in our public schools, there are free and reduced-price lunches
available in our schools for those who cannot afford the full cost of
these meals.
I also want to point out that access to communications systems, to
rural water and sewer systems, to modern electricity facilities that
are available in rural areas--where providing such services is much
more expensive per consumer than it is in urban areas--is made
available through Federal programs that help assure access of farm
families and others who live in rural areas of our country to these
important quality-of-life situations.
We have made a tremendous contribution throughout rural America in
promoting economic development using business and industrial loans,
trying to attract good-paying jobs to small towns and rural
communities. Those programs are funded in this bill, too.
I might say for the purpose of showing the commitment, in many of
these areas we have increased the funding over previous year levels of
funding.
The Food and Drug Administration is an independent agency that is
funded in this bill as well. Such initiatives as medical device review
to assure safety for the consumers, drug safety, and the pharmaceutical
products that are supplied throughout our country have to meet
standards imposed by the Food and Drug Administration.
This year, we are providing an additional $5 million to the Food and
Drug Administration for the purpose of helping ensure drug safety. The
medical device review account is increased by $7.8 million over last
year's level. I have mentioned our efforts in counterterrorism and food
safety. That is also within the purview of the Food and Drug
Administration, and the funding there is $16.6 million above last
year's level. To help meet those challenges, we have had to make
adjustments elsewhere in the bill to keep it within the allocation
permitted by the Budget Committee.
There is not a specific account in here directed to hurricane
victims. The recent hurricane that struck the Gulf Coast States has
caused a tremendous amount of damage throughout the Gulf of Mexico
States--Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. I think there are more
counties in my State of Mississippi affected by that disaster than any
other State. The geographical area was so large, it is just horrible to
contemplate the total amount of physical
[[Page S10175]]
destruction of trees, of growing crops, of poultry facilities. Our
agricultural and rural community has been hit hard by the effects of
this hurricane. When you get closer to the gulf coast, of course, you
see total destruction along the coastal areas.
The other day when the majority leader led a delegation of 14
Senators to Louisiana, New Orleans, across the Mississippi gulf coast
and into Alabama, ending our tour in Mobile, it brought home to all of
us that the entire gulf coast area has been devastated. Businesses are
gone. Houses are gone. Churches are gone. Schools have disappeared. It
is breathtaking and horrible to observe.
The point I am making is that while this bill is not a disaster
assistance bill per se, there are many provisions in this bill that
will help these communities rebuild and recover and will help the
people of those areas until they can get their feet back on the ground
and back at work and in suitable housing.
I mentioned the farmer's loan programs that exist. There are also
funds in this bill for food stamps, for the Women, Infants and Children
feeding program. This is for mothers, to help them care for their
children, help to get them off to a healthy start in life. Food safety
concerns we have mentioned. Conservation recovery, rural housing
programs are all very important components to the recovery effort from
Hurricane Katrina. The Department of Agriculture has stepped forward
and is making good progress in identifying areas that need special
help.
Before long, the Senate will take up another supplemental
appropriations bill targeted directly to disaster victims. We are in
preliminary discussions already with the administration on when that
money will be needed, when will it be considered by the Senate, when
will the request be submitted. These are issues we are working hard to
resolve to be sure that Federal agencies that have the responsibility
of responding to this disaster have the funds they need to do it and do
it right and to do it quickly.
We have had a number of requests from Senators to consider changes in
this bill and for opportunities to speak on the bill. We are here and
we will be here the remainder of this day available to discuss issues
that may be brought to the attention of the Senate. We appreciate the
support of all Senators.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, when I was talking about the strong
support we received in this subcommittee from staff, I wanted to
specifically mention those staff members who have been actively
involved in the development of this legislation, helping organize the
hearings that were held, to review requests, to assess the needs:
John Ziolkowski, who is the clerk of this subcommittee, formerly was
staff director of the Senate Agriculture Committee when I was pleased
to serve as chairman. He has been very instrumental in managing the
work effort of this subcommittee.
Hunter Moorhead, who has had much experience in agricultural issues
and is a veteran of this subcommittee staff as well and was very active
in his work is deeply appreciated. He, incidentally, is from the State
of Mississippi, so we don't have to have a translator or anybody doing
simultaneous translation for anyone to understand us.
Fitz Elder, Dianne Preece, as well as Stacy McBride, an FDA fellow
who has joined this staff team and has been helpful in developing our
section in particular dealing with the Food and Drug Administration,
all have been very helpful, and we appreciate their good work.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1735
Mr. COCHRAN. 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 Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an
amendment numbered 1735.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Agriculture may consider the Municipality of
Carolina, Puerto Rico as meeting the eligibility requirements
for loans and grants programs in the Rural Development
mission area.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a provision to be added to the
bill that deals with eligibility for USDA rural development programs.
This is a provision which enables the municipality of Carolina,
Puerto Rico to be eligible for USDA rural development programs.
Eligibility for these programs is based on certain statistics such as
population and income but on occasion some communities are declared not
eligible because they are too close to an urban area or there is a
small pocket of higher income population in the locality.
There is no cost to this amendment. It merely makes the community
eligible. They still must apply through USDA and they are subject to
the availability of existing funds.
The Agriculture Committee has no objection and it has been cleared on
the Democratic side.
Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides of the
aisle and we know of no objection to the amendment from any Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1735) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Department of Agriculture and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2006, H.R. 2744, as
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $86.883
billion in budget authority and $69.248 billion in outlays in FY 2006.
Of these totals, $69.535 billion in budget authority and $50.456
billion in outlays are for mandatory programs in FY 2006.
The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in FY 2006 of
$17.348 billion. This amount is $430 million more than the President's
request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate, $518
million more than the House-passed bill, and $905 million less than FY
2005 enacted levels.
I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee
for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous
consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2744, 2006 AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal Year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority..................... 17,348 69,535 86,883
Outlays.............................. 18,792 50,456 69,248
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... 17,348 69,535 86,883
Outlays.............................. 18,816 50,456 69,272
2005 Enacted:
Budget authority..................... 18,253 71,954 90,207
Outlays.............................. 18,649 49,563 68,212
President's request:
Budget authority..................... 16,918 69,535 86,453
Outlays.............................. 18,652 50,456 69,108
House-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 16,830 69,535 86,365
Outlays.............................. 18,519 50,456 68,975
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority..................... 0 0 0
Outlays.............................. -24 0 -24
2005 Enacted:
Budget authority..................... -905 -2,419 -3,324
Outlays.............................. 143 893 1,036
President's request:
Budget authority..................... 430 0 430
Outlays.............................. 140 0 140
House-passed bill:
Budget authority..................... 518 0 518
Outlays.............................. 273 0 273
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to the rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
[[Page S10176]]
____________________