[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.
____________________