[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10210-S10214]
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 Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2744, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Bennett-Kohl amendment No. 1726, to amend the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936.
       Reid (for Nelson of Nebraska) amendment No. 1732, to 
     prohibit the use of funds for developing a final rule with 
     respect to the importation of beef from Japan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 1732

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to speak about efforts 
to resume normal beef trading relationships with Japan. I thank my 
colleagues from my neighboring beef States for their leadership and 
support and so many others for their efforts in seeking a bipartisan 
resolution to this matter.
  As I travel through Nebraska, attending events and participating in 
summer parades throughout the largely rural landscape, I am constantly 
reminded of the importance of our beef industry. Prominently displayed 
on many vintage cars and pickup trucks are generic black and yellow 
license plates that boast a clear message--``Nebraska, the Beef 
State.'' While it is unlikely any modern day automobile in Nebraska now 
or in the future will sport that yellow and black plate of old, our 
billboard slogan, ``the Beef State,'' is still the message people 
equate with Nebraska.
  I am here to address an important amendment that will suspend the 
rulemaking process the United States Department of Agriculture has 
proposed and published in the August 18, 2005 printing of the Federal 
Register in a rule entitled ``Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless 
Beef from Japan.'' The formal public comment period was closed 
yesterday so prompt Senate action is imperative. At the time the rule 
was published, the Nebraska Cattlemen, a grassroots organization whose 
individual producer members determine issues of importance to the 
Nebraska beef industry, wrote to me to request a stepped-up effort to 
convince Japan to resume imports of United States beef. In their letter 
they stated:

       [n]ormalization of beef trade must be progressively pursued 
     because it impacts the state's economy and because 
     responsible trading partners treat each other fairly and 
     justly.

  The letter continues:

       [t]rade should not be based on politics and protectionism.

  I couldn't agree more. Trade must be based on fair play. Free trade 
must include a vision of fair trade. I am going to step back a moment 
to state why this is so important to me and the hard-working cattle 
producers and beef processors in my State. In the beef State, cattle 
outnumber people four to one and more than one of every five steaks and 
hamburgers in the Nation comes from my State. According to USDA, 
Nebraska ranks first in commercial cattle slaughter, processing over 4 
million metric tons of beef and beef products in 2004. Nationally, the 
numbers are even more compelling. The U.S. beef industry is worth an 
estimated $175 billion, with cattle producers conducting business in 
all 50 States and operating 800,000 individual farms and ranches. The 
economic impact of the beef industry contributes to nearly every county 
in the Nation, and they are a significant economic driver in rural 
communities.
  Demand for beef continues to increase, up nearly 20 percent since 
1998. With 94.9 million cattle reported to be in the United States as 
of January 2004, there are 1.4 million jobs directly attributed to the 
beef industry. It is not a surprise that both the National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association and R-Calf United Stockgrowers of America have weighed 
in on the significance of their industry and the importance of having 
access to valuable markets throughout the world. With beef and beef 
variety meat exports accounting for approximately $3.8 billion in 2003 
alone, it is important to recognize NCBA's and R-CALF USA's statements 
on the USDA proposed rule that is the subject of my amendment.
  On August 22, R-CALF USA stated that this is an example of ``USDA 
tilting the playing field away from independent U.S. cattle producers 
by continuing to give market access before we gain market access.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the R-CALF USA statement be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America


              APHIS' Plan to Lift Japan Beef Ban Premature

       R-CALF USA expressed disappointment with the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) proposed rule titled 
     ``Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan,'' 
     published in Thursday's Federal Register (70 Fed. Reg. 
     48,494) to amend the agency's regulation for the importation 
     of meat and other edible animal products that would allow 
     Japan to export boneless cuts of beef to the United States.
       ``This is another example of the USDA tilting the playing 
     field away from independent U.S. cattle producers by 
     continuing to give market access before we gain market 
     access,'' said R-CALF USA President and Co-Founder Leo 
     McDonnell.
       ``In addition, USDA has yet to implement the scientifically 
     recommended measures to prevent the potential for BSE 
     amplification if it is introduced through imports,'' said 
     Missouri veterinarian and R-CALF USA Region VI Director Max 
     Thornsberry. ``USDA's own scientists have strongly and 
     consistently advised the agency to strengthen the U.S. feed 
     ban by prohibiting plate waste from cattle feed before the 
     U.S. lifts its ban on imported beef from any country where 
     BSE exists.''
       Thornsberry, who also chairs the R-CALF USA Animal Health 
     Committee, explained that the plate waste loophole would 
     allow the uneaten portions of imported beef from BSE affected 
     countries served at domestic restaurants to potentially enter 
     the food chain for U.S. cattle. Although Japan currently 
     performs a BSE test on all cattle

[[Page S10211]]

     slaughtered for human consumption, nothing in this rule 
     indicates importation of beef from Japan would be required to 
     cease if Japan decides to stop testing for BSE.
       ``Ironically, while the USDA ignores this potential pathway 
     for BSE infectivity, Japan has prohibited the feeding of 
     plate waste to cattle since 2002. Japan has gone much further 
     in developing systems to prevent exposure of cattle to BSE by 
     prohibiting the feeding of blood meal and poultry meal.''
       Thornsberry explained that while Japan did not have a feed 
     ban in place prior to 2001, it has since adopted the most 
     stringent BSE risk-mitigation measures recommended by 
     science, and will likely eradicate the disease from its 
     cattle herds long before countries like Canada, which has 
     chosen not to adopt stringent risk-mitigation procedures. 
     Canada has chosen to implement only the minimal BSE-
     protection measures, despite recognition of multiple cases of 
     the disease in Alberta.
       ``It is a real irony that while USDA supports its proposed 
     rule based on the fact that Japan conducts BSE tests on all 
     cattle slaughtered in Japan, thereby ensuring that BSE-
     infected cattle are removed from the food chain, the agency 
     continues to prohibit U.S. packers from voluntarily testing 
     for BSE to meet Japan's testing requirements, and as a means 
     of restoring other U.S. export markets,'' said Thornsberry.
       ``The U.S. cattle industry deserves consistent and science-
     based standards from USDA, but this proposed rule is 
     inconsistent with what the agency has stated are necessary 
     standards for reopening U.S. export markets with countries 
     the agency considers to be minimal risk for BSE,'' said 
     McDonnell.
       McDonnell explained that in January 2005, USDA published a 
     major rule that set criteria for determining whether imports 
     from a country would present a minimal risk of introducing 
     BSE into the United States. While R-CALF USA has shown those 
     criteria are insufficient, USDA now proposes to ignore its 
     own rule and allow imports from countries that do not meet 
     the minimal-risk criteria.''
       Thornsberry also expressed concern about USDA's action.
       ``It is obvious from this rule that the USDA intends to 
     open the U.S. market to countries that have identified cases 
     of BSE within their domestic herds,'' he explained. ``It was 
     thought that BSE affected countries would have to meet the 
     same requirements placed upon Canada, and thus be classified 
     as minimal risk countries prior to being cleared to export 
     into the U.S. marketplace. That does not appear to be the 
     case.
       ``If the United States does not take a leadership role in 
     upwardly harmonizing global import and export standards for 
     beef from countries affected by BSE, the U.S. will become the 
     dumping ground for beef from countries that have BSE endemic 
     within their cattle herds,'' Thornsberry said.
       Also disappointing about USDA's proposed rule is that it 
     clearly shows how the agency is subjecting U.S. cattle 
     producers to a double standard. The proposed rule requires 
     Japan to certify that exported beef was born, raised, and 
     slaughtered in Japan.
       ``This is the very definition of origin that USDA found so 
     objectionable in the Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (M-
     COOL) law passed by Congress in the 2002 Farm Bill and 
     intended to benefit U.S. cattle producers,'' said McDonnell. 
     ``USDA has repeatedly claimed there is no food-safety basis 
     for COOL and that the `born, raised and slaughtered' standard 
     is both unnecessary and unworkable. Yet, in its proposed 
     rule, USDA is using the `born, raised, and slaughtered' 
     standard in COOL to assure the safety of Japanese beef, for 
     the benefit of the Japanese cattle industry. This is the type 
     of inconsistent treatment of the U.S. cattle industry that 
     continues to erode industry confidence in the USDA.''
       ``USDA cannot--with complete disregard for established 
     science--keep moving the bar to suit its political agenda,'' 
     Thornsberry emphasized. ``It is a disservice to our trading 
     partners, a disservice to U.S. cattle producers, and a 
     disservice to global trade relations.
       USDA will consider public comments on its Proposed Rule 
     that are submitted before or on Sept. 19. For more 
     information on making comments, or to view the Proposed Rule, 
     please visit www.r-calfusa.com and click on ``BSE-
     Litigation.''

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I also have a statement from NCBA in reaction 
to the rule that states it ``will not support finalization of this 
proposed rule until Japan has completed its process and accepts beef 
from the United States.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have the NCBA statement, dated August 19, 
2005, printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 NCBA Statement on USDA Proposed Rule To Allow Boneless Beef From Japan

                            (By Jim McAdams)

       Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a 
     proposed rule in the Federal Register titled: Importation of 
     Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan.
       NCBA will not support finalization of this proposed rule 
     until Japan has completed its process and accepts beef from 
     the United States. Until both countries can agree to World 
     Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines, any beef 
     product coming into the United States should meet the same 
     requirements Japan has set for us.
       This proposed rule would allow imports of boneless beef 
     from Japan into the United States if the product meets all 
     U.S. safety standards, including removal of specified risk 
     material. Historically, annual beef imports from Japan have 
     been very small, averaging 19,000 pounds in recent years, an 
     amount equal to approximately one-half of one semi-trailer 
     load. The highest level was 33,510 pounds in 1999, which is 
     less than what one semi-trailer can haul. This Japanese 
     product has averaged $45 per pound.
       The publication of this proposed rule begins the U.S. rule-
     making process to fulfill our part of the framework agreement 
     announced October 23, 2004 by U.S. and Japanese officials.
       There is no scientific basis for continued restrictions on 
     boneless beef when safeguards are in place. BSE infectivity 
     has never been found in muscle tissue. For these reasons, the 
     United States has repeatedly called on Japan to open the 
     border to U.S. beef, and NCBA calls for this action 
     simultaneous to allowing imports of Japanese beef into the 
     United States.
       NCBA will continue our aggressive push for the complete re-
     opening of all export markets for U.S. beef. At NCBA's 
     continued urging, re-establishing beef exports is at the top 
     of the trade agenda at the White House, USDA and Congress. 
     The President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Agriculture, 
     U.S. Trade Representative and several senators and 
     congressmen are actively pursuing this goal. NCBA also has 
     traveled to Japan to meet with government officials to give 
     them the assurances they need that U.S. beef is safe from 
     BSE.
       NCBA will not rest on this issue until there is 
     harmonization of beef trade based on science. The framework 
     agreement states, the ``two countries will resume two-way 
     trade in beef and beef products, subject to their respective 
     domestic approval processes, based upon science.''
       NCBA members believe our beef has every right to compete 
     for its share of the 96 percent of the world's population 
     that lives outside the United States. Not only do U.S. cattle 
     and beef producers produce the best beef in the world, 
     scientists agree beef is safe from BSE.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Over the past few days, much has been done to 
elevate the discussion on the need to resume a normal trade 
relationship with the Government of Japan. Last week I joined 
Congressman Tom Osborne of Nebraska in a letter to USDA Secretary Mike 
Johanns, urging the Secretary to delay the proposed rule until such 
time as Japan completes its process and accepts beef from the United 
States. Another letter was sent to Secretary Johanns at approximately 
the same time by a number of my Senate colleagues--Senators Roberts, 
Cornyn, Craig, Burns, Crapo, Allard, Hutchison, Thomas, Thune, and 
fellow Nebraskan Senator Hagel. Their letter emphasizes that Japan must 
lift this unnecessary embargo, stating that U.S. ranchers and rural 
communities cannot continue to bear the economic uncertainty resulting 
from bad international policy. They added that it would be difficult 
for Congress to accept any admission of Japanese beef into the United 
States. I am thankful for their leadership and recognition that USDA's 
rulemaking effort should cease.
  Additional letters that I signed, again with bipartisan support, were 
forwarded to President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. 
The letters complimented the administration's work in impressing upon 
Japanese officials the importance of the resumption of trade and urged 
their continuing efforts in making restoration of United States beef 
trade the highest economic priority with Japan.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. If passed, the 
amendment would restrict funds made available in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill from being used by the Secretary of Agriculture for 
the purpose of developing a final rule relating to the proposed rule 
entitled ``Importation of Whole Cuts of Boneless Beef from Japan,'' to 
allow the importation of beef from Japan unless the President certifies 
to Congress that Japan has granted open access to Japanese markets for 
beef and beef products produced in the United States.
  While some have said this amendment is too restrictive, limiting the 
ability of the Agriculture Secretary to negotiate with Japan, I see it 
another way. I see it as simply applying the same policy Japan has in 
place against United States beef.
  I think it strengthens the Secretary's hand by sending Japan the 
clear message that the Senators from beef-producing States and from our 
neighboring States are not going to drop

[[Page S10212]]

this matter. Our beef is the safest and highest quality in the world. 
There is no science-based reason for the embargo to continue, and if 
they want to sell beef here, then they need to let us sell beef there.
  Finally, I cannot back down from a personal commitment to the folks 
back home to aggressively pursue a Japanese market that in 2003 
accounted for $1.4 billion of the $1.7 billion beef export market.
  Like Secretary Johanns, when he served as Governor of Nebraska, I 
have traveled to Japan on numerous occasions touting the exceptional 
quality and value of Nebraska beef and U.S. beef. Beef producers 
throughout the Nation produce a superior quality product and have been 
very supportive of Secretary Johanns' continuing efforts on behalf of 
the U.S. beef industry as Secretary of Agriculture.
  Unfortunately, bipartisan letters of support have not been able to 
resolve this issue. A congressional response is warranted. That 
includes a strong statement that prematurely allowing Japan any access 
to our markets is simply unacceptable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am interested in the subject which is 
raised by the Senator from Nebraska in his amendment. There are some 
aspects with relationship to it about which I would like to get a 
little more information. I would like to set the vote for 11:25 a.m. If 
I may, before we lock that in, there are a few items I would like to 
settle.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. 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. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic 
leader be recognized to speak at 2:15 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 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. 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.
  The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 1738

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be laid 
aside, and I ask that the clerk report amendment No. 1738.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for himself, Mr. 
     Roberts, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Hagel, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1738.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call 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 into 
                 the United States of beef from Japan)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. It is the sense of the Senate that the United 
     States Government should not permit the importation into the 
     United States of beef from Japan until the Government of 
     Japan takes appropriate actions to permit the importation 
     into Japan of beef from the United States.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in 
relation to the Allard amendment No. 1738, to be followed by a vote in 
relation to the Nelson amendment No. 1732, occur at 11:20 a.m. today, 
with no amendment in order to either amendment prior to that time, and 
that the two votes occur in that order. I further ask that there be 2 
minutes between the two votes for explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah will yield, I 
would like to have an opportunity, with the presentation of my 
amendment, to speak for 10 minutes, if I might.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Colorado should certainly take the time 
to explain his amendment. The Senator from Nebraska has expressed a 
desire to respond to the Senator from Colorado. I suggest that the time 
between now and the vote be equally divided between the Senator from 
Colorado and the Senator from Nebraska, or should we say the Senator 
from Colorado have a little extra time because it is his amendment. 
However we work this out, I think we should make sure both sides get an 
opportunity to speak.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining until the next 
vote?
  Mr. BENNETT. There is approximately 10 minutes remaining until the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is approximately 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until the vote be equally divided, with 5 minutes per speaker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, and I 
appreciate his leadership.
  The Government of Japan has maintained an embargo on U.S. beef for 
more than 20 months. The beef industry is an integral part of the U.S. 
economy. It is an integral part of the State which I represent, the 
State of Colorado, and is an integral part of Nebraska's economy, as we 
just heard from Senator Nelson about concerns that apply to his State. 
This issue is particularly important for the southern and western parts 
of the United States.
  Before the embargo, exports to Japan were approximately $100 million 
a month. Today, the border closure has cost us over $2 billion. Since 
the border closure, 10,000 U.S. meat packers have lost their jobs. To 
address this we came to an agreement with the Japanese on what it would 
take to open our borders to each other. The United States has worked 
diligently to meet our end of the agreement and to assure that we can 
resume trade with the Japanese. Yet even with all of our efforts, 
Japan's border remains closed. The Japanese Government has made some 
progress. Yet the process is becoming muddled underneath unnecessary 
bureaucracy on the part of the Japanese Government.
  The United States has a long commitment to producing the world's 
safest food, and they still continue to have that strong commitment. 
The safety of U.S. beef is assured by sound science based on policy. I 
emphasize that U.S. beef is both safe and delicious. The time has come 
for us to express our frustration as a collective body.
  I, along with a number of my colleagues, met with the Ambassador from 
Japan to the United States a number of months ago and was assured they 
were giving serious consideration to the embargo they placed against 
American beef because of, at that point, one case of mad cow disease in 
the United States. They were relatively assured that the process was 
going to move along. We told them at the time that we believed the 
process was being delayed. They assured us they would move it along.
  They did move it along. Last week or so, we did get our decision back 
from this commission in Japan, and it was unfavorable as far as 
allowing U.S. beef to be imported into the country of Japan.
  Japan has had a number of mad cow disease cases. We have had only two 
cases. Both of those have not resulted in any other outbreaks. They 
have had upwards into the teens of cases of mad cow disease, and yet 
they are using, in my view, the mad cow disease as a reason to impose 
an embargo against American beef.
  We cannot stand aside and lose thousands upon thousands of jobs in 
the beef industry as a result of this action. It is not based on good 
science. We have extremely good meat processing procedures that protect 
human health in the United States, the best in the world as far as I am 
concerned. I don't think we have anything to be apologetic for. Just 
because you recognize one or two cases of mad cow disease does not mean 
you have a problem. It may mean you are doing a good job. I can think 
of countries that have not

[[Page S10213]]

had any cases of mad cow disease and may very well have it. It may be 
they are not doing a good job, that they are not checking for the 
disease, and if you don't check for it, you are not going to find it.
  We have a very strict system of surveillance in this country. When we 
process beef, we hold suspected animals if they show any clinical signs 
at all, whether it is a temperature or that they show any signs of 
being uncoordinated that might suggest mad cow disease--if this is the 
case we take them out of the processing lines until we have a 
confirmation as to whether they are afflicted or not afflicted.
  As a result of these frustrations, I offer this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution asking that the U.S. borders not be open to Japanese beef 
imports until the Japanese borders are open to us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Colorado and I certainly 
appreciate his support in working to reopen the borders with the 
country of Japan. I feel like somebody on a trip asking the question: 
Are we there yet? For 20 months we have been asking this question: Are 
we there yet?
  The sense-of-the-Senate resolution is perhaps a softer way of saying 
to Japan, finish this project as quickly as you can so this process 
does not go on another 20 months. The truth is I think it is time to 
move beyond our soft talk to harder talk. Perhaps this will help the 
Japanese Government understand that we are very serious about this 
continuing nontariff trade barrier against United States beef. It is 
extremely important to the economy of the State of Nebraska. It is 
important to the economy of our country. What it boils down to is it is 
unfair. There is no sound science that justifies the action that has 
been taken. With two cases of mad cow detected in the United States, 
one coming from Canada, statistically it is nonexistent in terms of the 
millions of head of cattle that are sent to slaughter every year.
  When you look at the situation, you have to ask yourself the question 
of why has it taken so long, 20 months, for this process.
  Now, I am at times frustrated by our own bureaucracy, but I think on 
its worst day, our bureaucracy can't compete with this process that has 
continued to delay and delay and delay this whole effort to try to 
reopen the trade between the United States and Japan for cattle.
  I suggest we can do both. We can pass a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution which perhaps says in its own way that we need to reopen the 
trade borders and knock down these trade barriers. But I think we also 
need to say that we cannot move forward through the USDA until--not 
suggest but say we cannot move forward until and unless the Japanese 
reopen their borders to our exports. I think you can do both. I think 
one is a soft way, but the other sends a strong message. It is time for 
that strong message. Everywhere I go across Nebraska, I hear people 
say: How can this be? How can we continue to allow our trading partner 
to treat us this way? I think the answer is we cannot, and this is the 
way in which we stop it and we bring it to a head.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would ask the Senators if they would 
allow us to do the Allard amendment by a voice vote, given the fact 
that the Senator from Nebraska has suggested he would be in support of 
this, and would allow us to do both. Perhaps we could adopt the Allard 
amendment by a voice vote and then move to the yeas and nays on the 
Nelson amendment.
  I would ask each Senator if they would respond to the Chair how they 
might feel about that. I am happy to call for the yeas and nays on both 
amendments if that is what they would like, but I have a sense that the 
Allard amendment is probably going to pass since the Senator from 
Nebraska has indicated his position on it, and it may be we can save 
the Senate some time by having only one recorded vote rather than two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Nebraska 
is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I have no objection to that 
procedure. I think it would perhaps save time for the Senate. I believe 
the sense-of-the-Senate resolution should be passed nearly unanimously 
by this body and it gives the opportunity for those who want to take a 
stronger position to be able to do it and be recorded as a yea or nay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from Nebraska and myself are on the same 
page. We are both greatly disappointed that the negotiations from Japan 
have not been progressing well at this particular point. I think we 
need to recognize that the State Department has been working hard on 
this issue as well as the Department of Agriculture. In fact, I have 
been told as recently as yesterday that the Secretary of State has had 
discussions with the Ambassador from Japan. I do think we need to do 
something on this floor to send a strong message to Japan about our 
concerns about their continuing to apply an embargo against United 
States beef. It is blatantly unfair and scientifically doesn't stand 
up.
  As far as I am concerned, we can go ahead and adopt the Allard 
amendment by a voice vote or unanimous consent, however the chairman 
wishes to proceed. Then these things perhaps can get refined better in 
conference committee when we work through this process in conference 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:20 
having arrived, the vote is scheduled to occur in relation to the 
Allard amendment.
  Without objection, the Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Chair.
  In fairness to both efforts, if we are going to adopt the Allard 
amendment by a voice vote, is it possible then to adopt the Nelson 
amendment by a voice vote as well?
  Mr. ALLARD. I have no objection on this side, Mr. President.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I think there will be some who might want 
to vote against the Nelson amendment since the administration is 
opposed to it. Secretary Johanns has made the statement to that effect. 
So for those who are not here who might want to be on the record, I 
think we perhaps should have the yeas and nays with respect to the 
Nelson amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is hard to believe people 
might be inclined to vote against this amendment, but if that is the 
choice, I would withdraw my suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Allard 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1738) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, with respect to the Nelson amendment, I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the question now is on agreeing to the 
Nelson amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

[[Page S10214]]



                                NAYS--26

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Cochran
     DeMint
     Dole
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Salazar
     Stevens
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Corzine
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 1732) was agreed to.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, on Thursday of last week, when Senator 
Kohl and I laid down the bill, I made the point that while there are no 
direct emergency aid funds in the bill, there are funds for many of the 
programs that would aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina and, frankly, 
programs they badly need.
  To point out some of the increases over the fiscal year 2005 level 
that have impact on Katrina that are in this bill: $16.6 million for 
food defense activities at FDA; $36.2 million for food safety 
activities at USDA; nearly $250 million in loan authorizations for 
rural housing, including housing repair; $1.1 billion in rural utility 
loan authorizations for rural water and electric loans; $22 million for 
the Women, Infants and Children feeding program; and $5.6 billion in 
food stamps. These are all issues that affect the victims of Hurricane 
Katrina, and every State and every citizen will benefit from the 
programs in this bill. So I hope we can move forward with it in an 
expeditious fashion.
  The USDA and FDA, the principal agencies funded in this bill, are 
working under very difficult conditions to address the needs in the 
hurricane-affected areas. FDA has had to transfer 50 employees from 
their regional office in New Orleans to Nashville, and USDA has had to 
relocate several hundred employees to keep its programs going.
  So I hope we can do our best to effectively and quickly get this bill 
moving. I urge those who have amendments to the bill to come to the 
floor and help us with this bill.
  We have one amendment which I understand has been cleared, and the 
Senator from Colorado has that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 1737, as Modified

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1737, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1737, as modified.

  Mr. ALLARD. 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:

       On page 93, line 9, before the period at the end insert the 
     following:``: Provided further, That the Secretary, through 
     the Agricultural Research Service, or successor, may lease 
     approximately 40 acres of land at the Central Plains 
     Experiment Station, Nunn, Colorado, to the Board of Governors 
     of the Colorado State University System, for its Shortgrass 
     Steppe Biological Field Station, on such terms and conditions 
     as the Secretary deems in the public interest: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary understands that it is the intent 
     of the University to construct research and educational 
     buildings on the subject acreage and to conduct agricultural 
     research and educational activities in these buildings: 
     Provided further, That as consideration for a lease, the 
     Secretary may accept the benefits of mutual cooperative 
     research to be conducted by the Colorado State University and 
     the Government at the Shortgrass Steppe Biological Field 
     Station: Provided further, That the term of any lease shall 
     be for no more than 20 years, but a lease may be renewed at 
     the option of the Secretary on such terms and conditions as 
     the Secretary deems in the public interest''.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, very briefly, what this amendment does is 
it just allows Colorado State University to lease land from the 
Agricultural Research Service. It is not a controversial provision.
  I ask unanimous consent it be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1737), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to reconsider the vote with respect to the Allard 
amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________