[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10264-S10273]
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 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Utah.
Nomination Of John Roberts To Be Chief Justice
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, we are on the Agriculture bill, but the
morning has been taken up with discussion of Judge Roberts. I think
that is appropriate given the decision of the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to support Judge Roberts and to
announce that here this morning. That was perhaps unexpected by some of
the commentators and, therefore, deserved a little time.
I will take the opportunity, having listened to the junior Senator
from Massachusetts, to respond to some of the things he said, not with
the understanding that it is going to change anything anywhere but for
the satisfaction of getting a few things off my chest.
The Senator complained bitterly, as he and others have done with
respect to other nominees, that the memos given to the Solicitor
General are not being made public. He did not tell us that every
Solicitor General--regardless of party, regardless of administration--
who is currently living has agreed with Judge Roberts, with Miguel
Estrada, with others who worked in the Office of the Solicitor General,
that those memos should, in fact, not be made public.
They are, in fact, covered by the attorney-client privilege. Some
say, ``Well, the American people are the client, not the Solicitor
General.'' The Solicitor General is the attorney for the American
people and has a right to attorney-client privilege within his own
staff, as any attorney has for material within that attorney's own
office, as if they are representing a private client.
This keeps coming up. It keeps being repeated in the hope that it
catches on. We need to always remember that every single Solicitor
General who is living--regardless of their party--says that is the bad
thing to do. That is the wrong interpretation of the law. The Senator
from Massachusetts did not point that out. I think it needs to be
pointed out.
He made a reference to the bureaucrats who were involved here who, as
he said, have not taken an oath to defend the Constitution as we
Senators have. I have been a bureaucrat. I have taken an oath as a
bureaucrat to defend the Constitution. Those who serve the United
States in these positions are sworn in with the same oath Senators
take. It should be made clear those people who took that position and
were in that position were, in fact, under oath to defend the
Constitution. It demeans them to suggest their actions were any less
patriotic or anxious to protect the law than actions of Senators.
I will conclude by quoting from an editorial that appeared in the Los
Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times is not known as a paper supportive
of Republican positions. Indeed, it is often thought of as being a
companion publication with the New York Times. But the Los Angeles
Times says:
It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in
Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not
vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief
justice of the United States.
As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is
an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the
mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad
bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate
vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing
more than self-defeating obstructionists. . . .
Even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game,
voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee
hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage [on the upcoming
second nomination].
If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably
conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice
palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone
who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be
harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over
Roberts.
I am not sure that will change anything, but it makes me feel a
little better having said it, after listening to the presentations we
have heard over the last hour. I congratulate my friend, Senator Leahy
from Vermont, for his courage in standing up to internal pressures and
his announcement that he will, following the advice of the Los Angeles
Times and others who have examined this, in fact vote to confirm Judge
Roberts. This guarantees that we will have a bipartisan vote out of
committee, as we should, and that we will have strong bipartisan
support here on the floor, as we should.
Amendment No. 1783
Returning to the Agriculture appropriations bill, I send an amendment
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment
numbered 1783.
Mr. BENNETT. 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 173, at the end of the page, insert the following:
``Sec. 7__. (a) Notwithstanding subtitles B and C of the
Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et
seq.), during fiscal year 2006, the National Dairy Promotion
and Research Board may obligate and expend funds for any
activity to improve the environment and public health.
``(b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall review the impact
of any expenditures under subsection (a) and include the
review in the 2007 report of the Secretary to Congress on the
dairy promotion program established under subtitle B of the
Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et
seq.).''.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, we need a little background on this
amendment. It may be controversial. I understand there are some
Senators who have opposed it and will be coming to the floor.
It would allow the producers on the National Dairy Promotion and
Research Board to vote to fund or not fund the dairy air emission
research required under the Environmental Protection Agency's Air
Quality Compliance Agreement. This sounds fairly technical. In fact,
the money that is available to the board has always been used for
particular purposes, and most dairy producers want to make sure that it
stays restricted to those purposes. But something has come up that
requires research. It has come not from the Department of Agriculture
but from the Environmental Protection Agency in a new agreement that
affects dairy farmers. And in order to defend themselves against the
position taken by the EPA, they need research. They need it now, and
they need it badly.
This amendment would allow a one-time use of dairy promotion and
research funds to fund the research. Most
[[Page S10265]]
dairy farmers are in favor of it. Dairy is the only program that does
not have an option for funding its own research. The research will be
conducted by Purdue University, according to protocols approved by the
EPA. This is not in opposition to EPA procedures. The actual research
will be performed by land grant universities in the States identified
by the U.S. Dairy Environmental Task Force.
If we assume approval by the board, which would happen if my
amendment were adopted, the funds will flow through an oversight
organization, again approved by the EPA. The Agriculture Air Research
Council, Inc., AARC, will contract with Purdue which will, in turn,
contract with the universities in the States where the sites are
selected. Dairy funds only will be used to fund the dairy research.
AARC's board will include two members from the dairy industry and will
monitor and audit the progress of the research and how the funds are
spent.
The ultimate goal of all of this research will be to develop air
emissions data that can be used in a process model that will allow any
dairy farmer in the United States to input his dairy's operation
information and find out what his emissions are. The information
generated by this research, therefore, will benefit all dairy
producers.
The reason is because the EPA has laid down rules with respect to
emissions from dairy farmers. Most farmers have no clue as to how many
emissions their farm is producing. The EPA has some fairly draconian
restrictions to put on dairy farms, if the emissions go above a certain
level. So how is a farmer to know whether he is in compliance, if there
is no research on how the emissions can be measured? That is the reason
we want the research done, and that is the reason farmers will benefit.
I believe Congress never intended the environmental statutes
regarding emissions to apply to agriculture. When we talk about
emissions, we are talking about smokestacks and automobiles and things
that have been created by human beings. Now the EPA has said, no, we
must monitor and, where necessary, control the emissions that come from
cows. Cows have been generating emissions for a long time, perhaps even
before human beings came along. So let's look at it, but let's not have
a rule that arbitrarily disadvantages the dairy farmers without giving
them an opportunity to know what is going on. That is what is behind
this. In order to deal with the EPA regulations, the farmers need to
know what is happening with respect to emissions. My amendment would
fund a one-time study to give them the information they need. I believe
without statutory changes, the courts will continue to rule that the
environmental laws do, in fact, apply to dairy farms, and that is an
issue for the authorizing committee. It is not something we should deal
with on the Agriculture bill. Barring changes to the laws, I believe
the collection of these data and the development of an emissions model
will provide more certainty to producers.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Those who are opposed
have been notified. I understand there are conflicts on both sides of
the aisle at this particular moment. I am not sure how many Senators
will be able to come down. We are open for business. We are ready for
amendments. We are anxious to proceed. I hope my colleagues will
accommodate us.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, as certainly the Senate knows, we are
considering the Senate appropriations bill. There is an amendment that
the chairman has brought at the request of the national dairy industry
that is of great concern to me. As a result of that, I stand today in
opposition to legislation that would seek to divert funds from the
National Dairy Promotion Program to be used as a one-time-only source
to fund EPA's dairy air quality studies.
While I am wholeheartedly in support of the need for research money
to carry out air quality studies, dipping into a program that all
producers, large and small, are required to pay into to promote their
products does not seem to meet the test of where we want to now
reallocate this resource.
The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 was established to
strengthen the dairy industry's position in the marketplace and to
maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and use for fluid milk
and dairy products. The act does provide for research dollars to be
spent but only on research projects related to the advertisement and
promotion of the sale and the consumption of dairy products. So should
this act leave the door open as a slush fund available any time a
select group needs quick money for a proposed unrelated intent of the
law? I would hope not, I would think not, and I am afraid the amendment
takes us in that direction.
On September 9, 2005, I and the entire Idaho congressional delegation
sent a letter on this issue to Secretary Johanns. I ask unanimous
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Idaho Congressional Delegations,
September 9, 2005.
Hon. Mike Johanns,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Johanns: We write to express opposition to a
proposal to divert funds from the National Dairy Promotion
Program to fund the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
dairy air quality studies.
We understand that a proposal has been put forward to
provide for a ``one time'' use of National Dairy Promotion
Program funds for dairy air quality studies. We support
necessary environmental research. However, we share the
concern of Idaho dairy producers that this proposal would
provide a misdirection of funds that are intended, according
to the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983, to be used
for dairy promotion and related research and education. In
authorizing the program, Congress clearly stated that the
assessments were to be used for ``carrying out a coordinated
program of promotion designed to strengthen the dairy
industry's position in the marketplace and to maintain and
expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for fluid milk
and dairy products produced in the United States.''
The Act and the Dairy Promotion and Research Order, which
implements the program, also defines research to be provided
through the fund as ``studies testing the effectiveness of
market development and promotion efforts, studies relating to
the nutritional value of milk and dairy products, and other
related efforts to expand demand for dairy products.
``Therefore, it is clear that the fund is meant to be used
for research related to the promotion of dairy products and
not for other purposes. If implemented, we are concerned with
the precedent the proposal would set toward possible future
diversion of these important promotion funds.
The dairy industry, the Administration, Congress, and
interested parties must work to find the best ways to fund
dairy environmental research that do not jeopardize promotion
efforts. Last year, dairy producers in Idaho voted to assess
themselves an extra $0.005/cwt. to fund environmental
research. This is raising approximately $500,000 per year,
enabling the establishment of a broad based research
coordination team that includes the State and Regional EPA
officials. This effort serves as an example of how the
industry is working to enable research, while not
compromising promotion.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look
forward to continuing to work with you to ensure the
continued success of U.S. agriculture.
Sincerely,
Mike Crapo,
United States Senator.
Mike Simpson,
Member of Congress.
Larry E. Craig,
United States Senator.
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter,
Member of Congress.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, Idaho recently became the fourth largest
dairy producer in the Nation, and coupled with that new status are our
inherent growing pains. Over the past 15 years, Idaho's expansion in
the dairy industry has been swift. So has the growth of the State's
population. The two have come in conflict with each other over the need
for Idaho's dairy industry to be good players in the environmental
arena. That is a critical issue, and they have, in most instances, been
successful in working out their problems.
Even with the increased pressure of urban encroachment and stringent
environmental regulations--and our State has not turned its back on
this issue--producers in my State continue to surprise me in their
work, in their
[[Page S10266]]
innovation, and the progressive thinking as it relates to resolving the
environmental problems that I suggested are inherent with large
concentrated herd and dairy development that is on going.
Idaho's industry realized a few years ago that it was vital they work
collectively to support research to find new technologies and methods
to mitigate the impact of the operations on the environment. So in
2004, Idaho dairy producers voted to assess themselves an extra half
cent per hundredweight to fund environmental research. In other words,
they didn't ask the country to do it, they didn't ask the Nation to do
it, they did it themselves. This initiative raised about a half a
million dollars per year, enabling the establishment of a broad-based
research coordination team that includes Idaho and regional EPA
officers.
This effort serves as an example of how the industry ought to be
working to solve critical research problems rather than asking us now
to dip into a fund that was dedicated to advertisement, promotion, and
product development.
I am aware of EPA's work on the livestock ``air consent agreement''
to provide limited immunity from frivolous environmental lawsuits to
producers who voluntarily allow EPA to conduct their quality research
on their operations. I know that those who support this onetime dollar-
dipping have good intentions, and I support all of their intentions
fully. I have been working with them for a good number of months on
other ways to shape Federal policy on air quality issues. However,
asking Congress to allow a onetime-only access to the pool of money
never intended for that purpose defies the integrity of the dairy
promotion program that has worked so very effectively for now 22 years.
Supporters of this proposal say it would only cost around $5 to $8
million, but if it is that small amount, then if you look at the
assessment that Idaho did on themselves, you would suggest that more
and more could be raised if other States were to do as Idaho has done.
The program assesses all producers to promote the products that these
producers all provide to the consumer. The money from the promotion
program that some, not all, in the industry now seek would only benefit
a specific group of producers--about 1200--for a purpose completely
unrelated to the intent of the program. Why should we allow a precedent
to be set that robs Peter and the rest of his family to pay Paul? Never
mind that this has never been done in the program's history.
Mr. President, again, I would like to express my support for the
critical need for Federal investment in air quality and other
environmental research programs for the dairy industry, but we should
not open the gate to a flood that might never cease from a program that
is intended for an entirely different purpose. With that, I will have
to oppose the amendment.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I listened to my friend from Idaho with
great interest and great sympathy, and if, indeed, we could get all the
other dairy producers to follow Idaho's example and put an assessment
on themselves in order to come up with this money, I would agree with
him this amendment is not necessary. Unfortunately, I believe there is
an urgency here. The research needs to be done as quickly as possible,
and this seems to be the logical place to which we should go.
I will say to the Senator from Idaho and to my other colleagues the
fundamental problem here is not the research. The fundamental problem
in my view is the absurdity of the EPA position with respect to the
underlying question. That, as I said earlier, is not a matter for the
appropriations subcommittee to deal with. It is a matter for the
authorizing committee. But I will pledge to my friend from Idaho that
to the degree we can have some influence on the EPA's position in
conference, I will do everything I can to try to get a little common
sense into this regulatory pattern.
With that, Madam President, I call for a voice vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1783) was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, prior to the call of the roll, I wish to
thank the chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee for
his work on this issue and his cooperation. Certainly, this industry,
as it is important to my State, is important to his State. We work very
cooperatively together. We have a lot of commonness across State lines
as it relates to the dairy industry, and we share a great deal of work
and research. I appreciate the urgency of the need as he has expressed
it, but I felt it was extremely important that Idaho's position be
heard and understood by the rest of the States because this could be
done by the industry itself from another resource, not unlike how Idaho
has approached it. And I hope that other States would recognize the
need to resolve this issue, and I certainly agree with Senator Bennett
that the authorizing committee has a responsibility here and EPA needs
to get their act together on this issue.
I yield the floor, noting the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, is is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Snowe, and Ms. Milkulski pertaining to the
submission of S. Res. 246 are located in today's Record under
``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. First of all, I rise
to encourage my colleagues to vote for the appropriations bill that is
before us. It is the appropriations bill to fund The Department of
Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. I would like to thank
the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr.
Bennett, as well as the ranking member, for the excellent bill that
they have put together, and therefore it warrants our support because
it does fund the agricultural needs of our communities, and also funds
the Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. President, Maryland is an agricultural State. It might surprise
people because usually we are thought of as the home of high-tech
research, Johns Hopkins University, the National Institutes of Health,
but we are agricultural in soybeans and poultry. Also, we are the proud
home of the Food and Drug Administration. We are so proud of the fact
that the FDA is in Maryland and that the agency is charged with the
mission of food safety and also with the safety of our drugs and our
medical devices.
One might ask why is FDA in Agriculture appropriations. Well, because
its original mission was food safety. But now it has expanded to the
mission of ensuring the safety of our drugs and also of our medical
devices.
It is wonderful to have them in the State, these competent people who
work very hard putting America first, putting the safety of our people
first, and also ensuring that drugs and medical devices move to areas
of clinical practice.
But I am telling you I am really worried about what is going on at
FDA currently. FDA has always been the gold standard in maintaining
drug safety and drug efficacy. Yet today this agency is being
politicized and degraded. The current administration has shown a
persistent pattern of bringing incompetent leaders into critical
positions. We have seen it at FEMA. We have seen it at other agencies.
And now it is true at FDA. I see appointments being made on the basis
of ideology instead of competency. I have seen people who have worked
and devoted their
[[Page S10267]]
lives to FDA resigning because they saw science being politicized. I am
worried about this.
Now, I voted against the current FDA Director, not because he is not
a pleasant man but because there were so many problems under his watch.
And they are not getting better. Let's take the situation that occurred
in the consideration of something called plan B. Regardless of how you
feel about whether plan B emergency contraception should be available
over the counter, I think we would all agree that a decision should be
made. I understand it is controversial from a cultural standpoint, but
the question is was it controversial from a scientific standpoint?
Well, delay, delay, delay, delay. Even the head of the FDA recently
promised Senators Clinton and Murray that a decision would be made.
Guess what happened? What happened was after the scientists made their
decision, the Director delayed it because he said: How can we prevent
teenagers from getting it? Well, Madam President, you are a mom. You
know if we can keep alcohol and cigarettes out of the hands of
teenagers, surely the Food and Drug Administration would know how to
handle this issue of contraceptives with teenagers. Put it behind the
counter. Dr. Susan Wood, the Director of the FDA Office of Women's
Health, resigned in protest. Dr. Wood is a distinguished scientist. She
is a competent policymaker. She headed up the Office of Women's Health
that the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and I worked
to establish, to be sure that as drugs and clinical devices went
through the evaluation, special needs of women would be taken into
consideration and also children--another aspect led by our colleague
from Ohio, Senator DeWine.
So this is what Wood's job was. Did she quit because of pay? Did she
quit because she got some big job with the pharmaceutical industry? Why
did she quit? She quit because, she said, ``after spending the last 15
years to ensure that science forms policy decisions, I can no longer
serve when scientific and clinical evidence are being overruled by the
leadership.''
Well, she quit. So what happened? Guess who they announced would
serve as the acting director of the office last week? They announced a
male, a guy, with a background in veterinary medicine. What a
dismissive attitude of the Office of Women's Health.
Now, I am not saying a man could not handle that job. He probably
would have to work twice as hard to prove himself. But nevertheless, an
individual with a background in veterinary medicine in charge of the
Office of Women's Health? I admire the veterinarian community. They
play a very important role in our community. They are respected. They
are admired. They have sophisticated training. But I do not believe, as
we are looking at the impact of a drug on pregnancy, or of
postmenopausal women that someone with a background in veterinary
medicine should be in charge.
Guess what. Advocates and scientists pounded the table, and they put
someone else in charge. And the FDA doesn't even have the guts to stand
up for the immediate appointment it made. It backed off, saying: Oh, we
never announced his appointment. However a lot of people have that e-
mail. I do not know the qualifications of the new acting director, but
we are not heading in a good direction.
I want FDA to be the gold standard on safety and efficacy. There are
many countries around the world that are poor. They rely on what is
approved by FDA because they could never afford to have an FDA. Doctors
in clinical practice rely on the FDA to tell them what is a good and
safe drug, or what is a good and safe medical device, or an effective
device. This is phenomenal. I had the benefit of this myself. I wore a
heart monitor, invented in the United States of America, that could
tell my doctor whether the drugs they were giving me controlled a
condition of arrhythmia that I have. It was wonderful to know it had
been approved by FDA, that it could tell me if what I was doing was
safe, and could give advice to my physician on how best to treat me.
This is what we want the FDA to be able to do.
We have a lot of problems. Look what is happening. We know what
happened to Vioxx, out there prematurely, or with data withheld. We
have all of these questions.
If you want to worry about teenagers, let's worry about
antidepressants. I worry they can get antidepressants faster than they
can get plan B. That is up to parents and others to control. But these
antidepressants have had a very negative and dangerous effect on some
teenagers. Where was FDA?
Now we have these implantable defibrillators that can go into your
body, wonderful devices that can jump-start a heart. But guess what.
They are found to have short circuits. The manufacturer knew about it,
FDA knew about it, and they took no action on this. What is happening
to our FDA?
I have fought for the right resources, I fought for the right
legislative framework for FDA, and I am going to fight for the right
leadership.
I wish Dr. Crawford would, No. 1, take charge of his agency. I am not
calling for his resignation today, though he has to think about what he
is doing over there. He cannot continue to politicize this agency. I am
saying to him now that if he continues to politicize it, we will have
to look at further action. I believe he is a decent person, but either
he is getting direction from somewhere else or he has lost direction.
This is meant to be a scientific agency, standing sentry over the
safety of our food supply, doing the necessary evaluations as to
whether a drug should come into clinical practice, and making decisions
about whether a medical device can be safe and reliable and be the tool
it was supposed to be, such as the one I had the benefit from.
So I say let's support the appropriations, let's make sure they have
the right resources, but I sure in heck want them to have the right
leadership so we can come to the right conclusions, and people all over
the world--doctors, clinicians, and the American people can rely on
FDA. I want to rely on FDA for science and not politics.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from New Mexico.
nomination of john roberts
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to
support the nomination of John G. Roberts to be the next Chief Justice
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has the experience, judicial temperament, and qualifications
necessary to be Chief Justice, and his testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee has given me reason to believe he is not an
ideologue and that he will make decisions based on sound legal
reasoning that is within the mainstream of judicial thought in this
country. I do not believe that he has an agenda to reverse our Nation's
historic commitment to civil rights, and I take him at his word when he
says that he will take each case on its facts and apply the law
regardless of his personal views. It is for these reasons that I intend
to vote in favor of Judge Roberts' nomination.
Many people have raised legitimate concerns about views that Judge
Roberts expressed in the past. As a 26-year-old staff attorney in the
Reagan White House Counsel's Office, Roberts wrote a series of memos
that raised concerns about his commitment to civil rights. At his
confirmation hearing he said that he no longer held certain views and
it was important to distinguish between his personal views and those of
an advocate seeking to uphold the policies of his client.
Due to the limitations the Senate faced in obtaining documents, in
making my decision I had to primarily rely on Judge Roberts' testimony
before the Judiciary Committee. The assurances he provided in his
testimony give me what I believe is a reasonable expectation regarding
how he will approach cases if placed on the Court. I would like to take
a moment to briefly discuss some of these expectations that I believe
are reasonably based on what he said at that set of hearings.
First, Judge Roberts repeatedly stressed that he respects the rule of
law and recognizes the importance of considering stare decisis in the
decision making process. I agree that looking to settled precedent
should always be the starting point in this process. It is essential
that the decisions of the Supreme Court provide reliable guidance to
the American people, Congress, and the executive branch, and I believe
that the whimsical reinterpretation of settled law is not in the best
interest of our Nation. Based on the answers that
[[Page S10268]]
Judge Roberts gave, I believe it unlikely that Judge Roberts will chart
a new right-wing course for the Court based on his own personal views.
His answers indicate that he will apply the law in a fairminded way and
that he will afford longstanding precedent adequate deference.
Second, when asked about whether the Constitution contains a right to
privacy, which provides the legal basis for a woman's right to choose
and the use of birth control, Judge Roberts made clear that he believed
that it did. He stated clearly that the right to privacy was protected
by the ``liberty'' due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth
amendments. More importantly, Judge Roberts asserted that the right to
privacy conferred under the Constitution was a substantive and not
merely a procedural right. This view is in stark contrast to that of
Justice Scalia, who has argued for a strict constructionist
interpretation of the Constitution and believes the right to privacy is
an artificial construct that lacks any foundation in the Constitution.
Third, Judge Roberts also distinguished his views from those who see
Constitution as a static document and only recognize recourse to the
``original'' intent when interpreting it. I believe strongly that the
Constitution was intended to be a living document, and that we must
have a constitution that is able to address the challenges and
adversities that we face as a modern society. When our country was
founded we were living in very different times, and it is important
that our Constitution reflect the new world we are living in. In his
testimony, Roberts noted that although it was impermissible to
contradict the plain text of the Constitution, where the Constitution
uses general terms, such as ``liberty'' or ``equal protection,'' it is
acceptable to interpret the text in light of today's notions of liberty
and equal justice, not just those concepts as they were contemplated in
1787.
Fourth, with regard to recent Supreme Court decisions that have
restricted the ability of Congress to enact certain laws pursuant to
the commerce clause, Roberts' answers indicated a willingness to
interpret these cases in the context of the overwhelming jurisprudence
supporting Congressional authority in this area. Further restrictions
on the power of Congress to legislate under the commerce clause could
have profound implications concerning the ability of Congress to pass
laws with respect to the environment, civil rights, and many of the
basic advancements we made during the Warren court.
In addition, Judge Roberts also specifically rejected the tenets of
the Supreme Courts' 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which
drastically curtailed the ability of Congress to pass critical workers'
rights legislation, such as wage and child labor laws. Of course this
decision has since been overruled, but some jurists nominated by
President Bush, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, have advocated that the
decision was correctly decided.
There is one other issue that I would like to discuss. Some of the
most challenging issues that the Supreme Court will likely face over
the next decade will involve how we balance civil liberties with the
need to confront terrorism. The President has asserted tremendous
authority in this area, including the right to indefinitely detain a
U.S. citizen that he unilaterally deems an ``enemy combatant.'' The
Court will have to decide issues involving the detention of suspected
terrorists, due process rights, constraints regarding the use of
torture, and many other questions that will define our commitment to
longstanding principles of civil rights and civil liberties. During the
hearings, Judge Roberts rejected the Supreme Courts' decision in
Korematsu, which upheld the mass detainment of Japanese Americans
during World War II. Although this decision is a sad part of our
history, in a technical sense it is still legally binding. Judge
Roberts' complete rejection of this approach gives me hope that he
understands that governmental powers are not without limit in times of
war.
When asked whether he considers himself in the mold of Justices
Scalia or Thomas, Judge Roberts stated clearly that he would be his own
man. As I have stated, I expect that Judge Roberts will afford adequate
deference to Congress, will follow longstanding precedent, and will
apply the law in a fair and straightforward way. It is my hope that
Judge Roberts will uphold these expectations.
Team Nutrition
Mr. President, I now speak on a different issue. This is in relation
to an amendment I have filed on the current pending legislation, the
Agriculture appropriations bill. I will not offer that amendment at
this point because we are still in discussions with the bill's manager
and the ranking Democrat and their staffs to see if we can find an
appropriate offset for this amendment. It is one I offer with Senator
Lugar as my cosponsor. I believe it is a very important amendment. It
is an amendment to provide $10 million in additional funding to expand
and develop new team nutrition programs across the country.
Senator Lugar and I offer this amendment in light of the growing and
profound evidence that our Nation must confront what both the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human
Services refer to as our ``growing epidemic of childhood obesity.''
As Eric Bost, the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
Services, testified before Congress in April of this year:
Nearly 365,000 deaths a year are related to poor diet and
physical inactivity; poor diet and inactivity are the second
leading cause of preventable death after smoking.
He added:
In the past 20 years the percentage of children who are
overweight has doubled and the percentage of adolescents who
are overweight has more than tripled. If we do not stem this
tide, this may be the first generation of children who will
not have a longer life expectancy than their parents.
According to a 2005 Institute of Medicine report, there are
approximately 9 million children nationwide over the age of 6 who are
considered obese, resulting in increases in children being diagnosed
with type II diabetes and hypertension. In addition to the negative
effects on the health and well-being of these children, the rise in
childhood obesity has a profound economic cost for our country.
Between 1979 and 1999, obesity-associated hospital costs for children
between the ages of 6 and 17 more than tripled, according to a study
published in Children Pediatrics. To combat this, the administration
has launched an initiative it refers to as part of its larger healthier
U.S. initiative. It is called the Healthier U.S. School Challenge,
which is focused on helping children live longer, better, and healthier
lives.
Secretary Ann Veneman and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
announced in July of this year:
The school challenge builds upon the Team Nutrition Program
and recognizes schools that achieve nutrition and physical
activity standards.
The School Challenge and Team Nutrition requires schools to do
essentially five things: One, to serve national school lunch meals that
are verified to meet nutrition standards; second, to offer nutrition
education, which is the purpose of the amendment Senator Lugar and I
are offering; third, to maintain national school lunch participation
above certain levels; fourth, to offer physical activity for students
in those schools; and fifth, to ensure that all foods offered through
the school meet healthy standards as reflected in the dietary
guidelines for Americans.
Although there are 28,000 schools nationwide that are participating
as of October of last year as Team Nutrition schools, that is far from
adequate. There are way too many schools that are not participating
that should be participating. In fact, these programs are chronically
underfunded. Team nutrition has once again been proposed by the
administration, and in the current spending bill before the Senate the
proposed funding is $10 million. This is equivalent to 21 cents per
year for every child in public school in this country. There is nobody
who could credibly argue that 21 cents per child per year is an
adequate funding level for nutrition education. Unfortunately, the $10
million that has been proposed this year for funding in this program is
what was proposed last year. It is what was proposed the year before.
Essentially, we are on auto pilot in the Department of Agriculture with
regard to this program. There is no effort to
[[Page S10269]]
move ahead and deal with the very real, new challenges we have in
trying to teach nutrition to the young people of this country.
Furthermore, there is not a single set of funding in over half of the
States in the country as Team Nutrition dollars are only going to 21
States. Unfortunately, New Mexico is one of those States and is not
able to participate in Team Nutrition at any level because the funding
is so inadequate.
Today, one in seven young people is obese in this country; one in
three is overweight. Obese children are twice as likely as nonobese
children to become obese adults. Only 2 percent of children consume a
diet that meets the five main recommendations of a healthy diet from
the food guide pyramid that is published by the Secretary of
Agriculture, and three out of four children in the United States
consume more saturated fat than is recommended in the dietary
guidelines for Americans published by the Secretary of Agriculture.
We need to support any effort we can to curb this growing obesity
problem. We need to support making our children healthier today by
teaching them and the adults in their lives about the importance of
healthy eating habits and physical activity.
I urge the support of my amendment and Senator Lugar's amendment. As
I indicated, we will not call it for consideration or a vote at this
time, but hope we are able to find an appropriate offset and get
agreement to add this amendment to the legislation.
I would argue, I think without any reservation, that this is a small
investment. It is a first step, but it is an important step we should
be making as a Nation to confront the profound and growing problem many
children in our society face.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, we understand in the House bill there is
one section that deals with the country-of-origin labeling. This has
been one of the most heated debates we have had in the livestock
industry. It seems like it comes up every year.
In 2002, a mandatory country-of-origin labeling law was passed in the
farm bill. I remind my colleagues it is the law of the land. It was
signed into law. USDA was directed to start writing the administrative
rules that all meat being imported into the United States have a label
on it and also that meat domestically produced would also have a label
saying: ``Made in the U.S.A.'' That was in 2002. That was 3 years ago.
We have gone through this debate, and I know sometimes it gets carried
away and is very emotional. I understand in the House bill there is
another delay in putting the rules into effect.
Now, whether you agree or do not agree with the mandatory law, it is
the law of the land. This old business of delay and delay and delay
does not do anything for our beef or pork producers because there is no
consistency in the law. They do not know what to expect and what to do.
In Montana, my producers are tired of waiting. The USDA published a
proposed rule on mandatory country-of-origin labeling on October 27,
2003.
The public had a chance to comment. In fact, they even extended the
comment period to give folks extra time to weigh in on this important
issue. Three years have gone by, and here we are--no progress on
labeling. This is unacceptable. The Department needs to publish a final
rule, and they need to do it now. It is long past time to implement
country-of-origin labeling. It is the law of the land. If you don't
like the law, then repeal the law. But let's move on. At a minimum, at
least let us take a look at the rule. Congress voted to delay COOL once
already, and the anti-COOL forces are at it again. But we don't know
what the labeling requirements will look like. So the USDA needs to act
and to take a leadership role, and it needs to be published.
My producers in Montana will not tolerate another day of delay in
this important program. We need to get it done, and it needs to be done
right. And it needs to be mandatory. If Congress votes to make COOL
voluntary, they may just as well repeal the law because voluntary COOL,
or country-of-origin labeling, will not work.
In October of 2002, the Secretary did publish guidelines for a
voluntary labeling program. Any retailer who chose could begin labeling
their products. There is a lot of misconception and misinformation.
Some would contend that if we have a mandatory labeling law, that would
take precedence over a marketing label. In other words, if you wanted
to label beef as certified Angus beef, they couldn't do that. Sure,
they can do that. They can do it as long as it is domestically
produced, and the vast majority of it is, or any other marketing tool
that a State should have or that a product should have can still be
published, but we have to have a label USA.
Since we put it off and the voluntary rule has been in effect, I
wonder if anybody knows how many people took advantage of that
voluntary program. It doesn't take long to count them: zero, none,
zilch. Some of my friends say before we mandate a program, let's try
making it voluntary. Well, we tried that. It has been a 3-year period.
Nobody has used it. Nobody participated in a voluntary labeling
program. Now it is time to shift the balance of power to the world of
agricultural marketing.
Overwhelmingly, the folks who support country-of-origin labeling are
small cow/calf producers. These are the people who work hard every day
to raise healthy calves, produce a product, highest quality beef in the
world. They take a lot of pride in their products. They want consumers
to know that their beef was made in America, made in the good old USA.
But they don't have a whole lot to say about this decision, though,
because after they sell their calves, they go to a feedlot, and from
the feedlot they go into processing. From processing they go into the
retail channels. Somebody doesn't want to say this is a product of the
USA. Costly, have to trace, herd ID--all of those things, yes, there
will probably be a little work to it. But labeling is no more than
putting the label on of their own logo. It is time we did it.
Cow/calf people right now have not had much luck in sharing our pride
with our product. That is why Congress must act. Congress has acted. We
have passed mandatory COOL 2002. It is the law of the land. That is the
way it should be. Yet every year when Congress takes up Agriculture
appropriations, we face another attempt on the part of some to prevent
cattle producers from marketing their products as U.S. origin. What I
am saying today is; enough is enough. Congress passed the law. Let's
implement it. Producers are tired of waiting around. If you don't like
the law, then repeal the law. But don't keep us in this limbo of
standing here and waiting for something to happen, knowing that it
never will.
I know we will try and deal with this, whether it be on the Senate
floor--I would probably prefer not because the chairman of the
Agriculture appropriations said maybe this is a time that we should
have a little scrap in conference, and that is where I think it should
be done. I trust his judgment on that. But, nonetheless, I want
everybody to know--and I want the House of Representatives to know--
that this is irresponsible. You passed that law just like we did. If
you didn't like the law, then for goodness' sake, stand up and have
nerve enough to repeal it. But if it is not repealed, let's implement
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Amendments Nos. 1803, 1804, and 1805, en bloc
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a series of cleared
amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes amendments
numbered 1803, 1804, and 1805, en bloc.
Mr. BENNETT. These amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask
for their approval by voice vote.
[[Page S10270]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
Amendment No. 1803
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new paragraph:
``Sec. . Section 274(a)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:'' (C) It is not a violation of clauses
(ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of
subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces
an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a
religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit,
religious organization in the United States, or the agents or
officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage,
invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the
United States to perform the vocation of a minister or
missionary for the denomination or organization in the United
States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee,
notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical
assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the
minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination
for at least one year.
Amendment No. 1804
On page 170 strike Section 767 and replace it with the
following new paragraph:
``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds provided for in this or any other Act may be
used in this and each fiscal year hereafter for the review,
clearance, or approval for sale in the United States of any
contact lens unless the manufacturer certifies that it makes
any contact lens it produces, markets, distributes, or sells
available in a commercially reasonable and non-discriminatory
manner directly to and generally within all alternative
channels of distribution: Provided, That for the purposes of
this section, the term `manufacturer' includes the
manufacturer and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
successors and assigns, and `alternative channels of
distribution' means any mail order company, Internet
retailer, pharmacy, buying club, department store, mass
merchandise outlet or other appropriate distribution
alternative without regard to whether it is associated with a
prescriber: Provided further, That nothing in this section
shall be interpreted as waiving any obligation of a seller
under 15 USC 7603: Provided further, That to facilitate
compliance with this section, 15 USC 7605 is amended by
inserting after the period: ``A manufacturer shall make any
contact lens it produces, markets, distributes or sells
available in a commercially reasonable and non-discriminatory
manner directly to and generally within all alternative
channels of distribution; provided that, for the purposes of
this section, the term `alternative channels of distribution'
means any mail order company, Internet retailer, pharmacy,
buying club, department store, mass merchandise outlet or
other appropriate distribution alternative without regard to
whether it is associated with a prescriber; the term
`manufacturer' includes the manufacturer and its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns; and any
rule prescribed under this section shall take effect not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment.''
Amendment No. 1805
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new paragraph:
``Sec. . The Federal facility located at the South
Mississippi Branch Experiment Station in Poplarville,
Mississippi, and known as the ``Southern Horticultural
Laboratory'', shall be known and designated as the ``Thad
Cochran Southern Horticultural Laboratory'': Provided, That
any reference in law, map, regulation, document, paper, or
other record of the United States to such Federal facility
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Thad Cochran
Southern Horticultural Laboratory''.
Amendment No. 1752, as Modified
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 1752, the amendment be
modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 173, after line 24 insert the following:
``Sec. . The Secretary of Agriculture may establish a
demonstration intermediate relending program for the
construction and rehabilitation of housing for the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians: Provided, That the
interest rate for direct loans shall be 1 percent: Provided
further, That no later than one year after the establishment
of this program the Secretary shall provide the Committees on
Appropriations with a report providing information on the
program structure, management, and general demographic
information on the loan recipients.''
Amendments Nos. 1806 and 1807
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there are cleared amendments at the desk,
one from Senator Kyl and one from Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous
consent that they be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Kyl, proposes
an amendment numbered 1806.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Leahy,
proposes an amendment numbered 1807.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 1806
(Purpose: To convey title in certain real property)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 7___. As soon as practicable after the Agricultural
Research Service operations at the Western Cotton Research
Laboratory located at 4135 East Broadway Road in Phoenix,
Arizona, have ceased, the Secretary of Agriculture may
convey, without consideration, to the Arizona Cotton Growers
Association and Supima all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the real property at that location,
including improvements.
amendment no. 1807
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress
a report on whether to restore the National Organic Program)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 7___. The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
(1) as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
this Act, conduct an evaluation of any impacts of the court
decision in Harvey v. Veneman, 396 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. Me.
2005); and
(2) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report that--
(A) describes the results of the evaluation conducted under
paragraph (1);
(B) includes a determination by the Secretary on whether
restoring the National Organic Program, as in effect on the
day before the date of the court decision described in
paragraph (1), would adversely affect organic farmers,
organic food processors, and consumers;
(C) analyzes issues regarding the use of synthetic
ingredients in processing and handling;
(D) analyzes the utility of expedited petitions for
commercially unavailable agricultural commodities and
products; and
(E) considers the use of crops and forage from land
included in the organic system plan of dairy farms that are
in the third year of organic management.
Amendment No. 1808
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is an amendment from Senator
Feingold at the desk which I would like to call up and have a voice
vote on at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Feingold,
proposes an amendment numbered 1808.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To direct the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service to publish uniform methods and rules for addressing
chronic wasting disease)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 7___.(a) Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (referred to in this section
as the ``Administrator'') shall publish in the Federal
Register uniform methods and rules for addressing chronic
wasting disease.
(b) If the Administrator does not publish the uniform
methods and rules by the deadline specified in subsection
(a), not later than 30 days after the deadline and every 30
days thereafter until the uniform methods and rules are
published in accordance with that subsection, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that--
(1) describes the status of the uniform methods and rules;
and
(2) provides an estimated completion date for the uniform
methods and rules.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1808) was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The journal 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.
Amendment No. 1809
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk offered
by
[[Page S10271]]
Senator McConnell which I would like to call up for consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. McConnell,
proposes an amendment numbered 1809.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for livestock assistance)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 7___.(a) In carrying out a livestock assistance,
compensation, or feed program, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall include horses within the definition of ``livestock''
covered by the program.
(b)(1) Section 602(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7
U.S.C. 1471(2)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``horses'', after ``bison''; and
(B) by striking ``equine animals used for food or in the
production of food,''.
(2) Section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51) is amended
by inserting ``(including losses to elk, reindeer, bison, and
horses)'' after ``livestock losses''.
(3) Section 10104(a) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1472(a)) is amended by
striking ``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
(4) Section 203(d)(2) of the Agricultural Assistance Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 541) is amended by striking
``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
(c)(1) This section and the amendments made by this section
apply to losses resulting from a disaster that occurs on or
after July 28, 2005.
(2) This section and the amendments made by this section do
not apply to losses resulting from a disaster that occurred
before July 28, 2005.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to
with a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1809) was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Country of Origin Labeling
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about part of
the Senate bill that has to do with the identification of livestock
products and the country of origin labeling. This is an issue we have
talked about for some time and one that I think is very important. It
is important to my State and to livestock producers there.
Country of origin labeling is a very simple thing: When you go into
the store to buy a package of meat, it says on there where it comes
from. That is not a unique idea. We do it on T-shirts and jackets and
everything else and often many other foods. I think people would like
to know, and have the right to know, where that product comes from.
Country of origin labeling actually was put on the Agriculture bill
about 3 years ago, I believe. I was one of the original sponsors of the
amendment that put it on the Agriculture bill in 2002, as a matter of
fact. It has been around since. It simply says that consumers have the
right to know what was the origin of this particular product that they
are buying. It can be done by identifying the product as it comes off
the farm or range and following it through the process. It does not
require the same thing for hamburger or mixed food, which would be very
difficult.
I believe most consumers support mandatory labeling and many nations
require it on many kinds of foods and other products, including the
United States. But this bill, even though it passed originally, has
been postponed several times. I think there is something to that effect
in the House appropriations bill now. It is time we do it. We ought to
come to the snubbing post and get something done. It can be done. It
has been done other places. I think there is support for doing it.
There is labeling of fish, shellfish, and other foods, and that
appears to be working. As I said, it has been delayed more than once,
and I think the idea is it would be put in place in 2006.
I am asking, as we bring this bill to completion and come on to
working with the House in the conference, that we make sure we allow
this bill, that has been passed and approved by the House and the
Senate in the past, to go on and become law.
I will not take a great deal more time. I wish to point out it is
something, No. 1, that can be done; No. 2, that there has been support
for doing it. What we have done is kept postponing doing it. There are
some people, some of the retailers and so on, who do not want to have
to go to the trouble. But I think the process, for the consumers, is a
good idea. People should have the right and they have the desire, I
believe, to know the source of the product that they and their family
are going to consume. I ask, as we go forward with this bill, we should
keep that in mind and seek to complete this whole action, allowing it
to move forward.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1786, 1800, 1785
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that there are three
amendments at the desk; one offered by Senator Gordon Smith, one
offered by Senator John McCain, and one offered by Max Baucus.
I ask these amendments be called up and considered en bloc. They are
amendments No. 1786, for Senator Smith; No. 1785, for Senator McCain;
and No. 1800, for Senator Baucus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes amendments
numbered 1786, 1800, and 1785, en bloc.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1786
(Purpose: To allow the Secretary to authorize the use of certain funds
that would otherwise be recaptured under the rural business enterprise
grant program)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 7___. With respect to the sale of the Thermo Pressed
Laminates building in Klamath Falls, Oregon, the Secretary of
Agriculture may allow the Klamath County Economic Development
Corporation to establish a revolving economic development
loan fund with the funds that otherwise would be required to
be repaid to the Secretary in accordance with the rural
business enterprise grant under section 310B(c)(1)(B) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1932(c)).
AMENDMENT NO. 1800
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding public sector
funding of agricultural research and development)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 7___.(a) The Senate finds the following:
(1) Research and development have been critical components
of the prosperity of the United States.
(2) The United States is entering an increasingly
competitive world in the 21st century.
(3) The National Academy of Sciences has found that public
agricultural research and development expenditures in the
United States were the lowest of any developed country in the
world.
(4) The Nation needs to ensure that public spending for
agricultural research is commensurate with the importance of
agriculture to the long-term economic health of the Nation.
(5) Research and development is critical to ensuring that
American agriculture remains strong and vital in the coming
decades.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that, in order for the
United States to remain competitive, the President and the
Department of Agriculture should increase public sector
funding of agricultural research and development.
[[Page S10272]]
AMENDMENT NO. 1785
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding funding
directives contained in H.R. 2744 or its accompanying report)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
SEC. 7___. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) In a time of national catastrophe, it is the
responsibility of Congress and the Executive Branch to take
quick and decisive action to help those in need.
(2) The size, scope, and complexity of Hurricane Katrina
are unprecedented, and the emergency response and long-term
recovery efforts will be extensive and require significant
resources.
(3) It is the responsibility of Congress and the Executive
Branch to ensure the financial stability of the nation by
being good stewards of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that any funding directive contained in this Act, or its
accompanying report, that is not specifically authorized in
any Federal law as of the date of enactment of this section,
or Act or resolution passed by the Senate during the 1st
Session of the 109th Congress prior to such date, or proposed
in pursuance to an estimate submitted in accordance with law,
that is for the benefit of an identifiable program, project,
activity, entity, or jurisdiction and is not directly related
to the impact of Hurricane Katrina, may be redirected to
recovery efforts if the appropriate head of an agency or
department determines, after consultation with appropriate
Congressional Committees, that the funding directive is not
of national significance or is not in the public interest.
amendment no. 1785
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is
nearly identical to the amendment that was adopted unanimously last
week during debate on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill.
It is another attempt to reign in wasteful spending, particularly
during this time when portions of our country along the gulf are
enduring the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina--indeed, a
national tragedy.
As our Nation continues to manage the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
the Congress and the administration must do what it can to help the
hundreds of thousands of victims of one of the worst natural disasters
in our history. And now, another hurricane is gaining momentum which
could cause even more serious destruction to the region.
The costs of the recovery and relief effort will be enormous. We have
already appropriated more than $62 billion, and that is likely a mere
downpayment on the yet to be determined total expenditures that will be
required. Indeed, we live in times of great need and limited resources.
Americans are being called to sacrifice, and so many are selflessly
contributing what they can to the recovery efforts--they are donating
money, opening their homes, or offering other useful assistance.
Congress needs to do its part too. To the extent that it is possible,
we should pay for this effort now rather than pass on even more debt to
future generations. We should also make better use of taxpayers' money
by eliminating wasteful spending, and that is what this amendment is
about.
This year's Agriculture appropriations bill, and particularly its
accompanying report, contain numerous questionable earmarks, the
majority of which warrant further review, particularly given the
circumstances that have arisen since the bill was reported by the
Appropriations Committee in July.
Here are just a few examples: $2,000,000 for the National Sheep
Industry Improvement Center; $50,000 earmarked to study the shiitake
mushroom; $300,000 for USDA research at the Utah State University Space
Dynamics Laboratory to accurately measure gaseous emissions from
agriculture operations; $200,000 for grapefruit juice/drug interaction
research in Winterhaven, FL; $140,000 to the University of Nevada Reno
to conduct a feasibility study for a cooperative sheep slaughter
facility; $1,000,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket pest control in
the State of Utah; $24,066,000 above the budget request for boll weevil
pest management; $1,150,000 above the budget request for grasshopper
pest management; $300,000 for biological weed control in Sidney, MT;
$300,000 for the healthy beef initiative, Little Rock, AR; $200,000 to
study sudden oak death in Oregon; $600,000 for cranberry production
assistance in the States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin; $6,000,000 for
the construction of the Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory in
Bowling, KY; $1,000,000 for multiflora rose control in the State of
West Virginia; $1,500,000 for the construction of the Center for Grape
Genomics in Geneva, NY; $100,000 earmarked for animal identification
and tracking in the State of Washington; $100,000 for brown tree snake
management in Hawaii and Guam; $248,000 to reduce beaver damage to
cropland and forests in the State of Wisconsin; and $400,000 earmarked
for preventing blackbird damage to sunflowers in North and South
Dakota.
Certainly I must not be the only one who questions these kinds of
earmarks. We simply cannot afford ``business as usual'' around here.
The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I am proposing would allow for
a redirection of the funding for any of the earmarks that have not been
authorized, have not been requested by the President, or are not
related to the impact of Hurricane Katrina to be used for recovery
efforts. This would occur if the agency or Department head determines,
after consultation with the appropriate congressional committees--and
this would mean authorizers as well as appropriators--that such an
earmark is not of national significance or is not in the public
interest. Since almost all of these earmarks are in the report
language, which is not something I can amend, this amendment at least
sends a strong message to the agencies that they will be held
accountable for reviewing these directives and ensuring they are only
funded if found to be in the public interest.
I hope the amendment can be easily adopted and not take much of the
Senate's time, particularly since a similar provision was agreed to
last week. In a time of national catastrophe, it is the responsibility
of the U.S. Congress to take quick and decisive action to help those in
need. It is not appropriate to continue the practice of wastefully
earmarking scarce funds in the face of such a great tragedy. This
should be a time of sacrifice for the sake of our suffering citizens.
Mr. President, despite high gas prices, despite a swelling $331
billion deficit, despite our military operations overseas, and despite
our domestic emergencies, pork continues to thrive in good times and
bad. The cumulative effect of these earmarks erodes the integrity of
the appropriations process and, by extension, our responsibility to the
taxpayer.
I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for
agreeing to accept this amendment.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 1741
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senator DeWine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. DeWine,
proposes an amendment numbered 1741.
Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To pledge continued support for international hunger relief
efforts and express the sense of the Senate that the United States
Government should use resources and diplomatic leverage to secure food
aid for countries that are in need of further assistance to prevent
acute and chronic hunger)
On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 7___. It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Senate--
(A) encourages expanded efforts to alleviate hunger
throughout developing countries; and
(B) pledges to continue to support international hunger
relief efforts;
(2) the United States Government should use financial and
diplomatic resources to work with other donors to ensure that
food aid programs receive all necessary funding and supplies;
and
(3) food aid should be provided in conjunction with
measures to alleviate hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.
[[Page S10273]]
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have worked a great deal with my friend
from Ohio on international hunger issues and encourage my colleagues to
support his amendment.
I also ask that I and Senator Chambliss be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KOHL. In recent weeks, we have witnessed disaster and hunger and
displacement on our own shores. Those images are compelling. They
remind us that hunger and displacement and enormous human need are
chronic conditions in many parts of the world. For the people living in
these circumstances, U.S. food aid is as important as it has ever been.
I hope this amendment forces policymakers to rethink and recommit
themselves to international hunger relief.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1741) was agreed to.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1812
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for the
senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Reid, proposes
an amendment numbered 1812.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide that funds made available for the Plant Materials
Center in Fallon, Nevada, shall remain available until expended)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Amounts made available for the Plant Materials
Center in Fallon, Nevada, under the heading ``conservation
operations'' under the heading ``natural resources
conservation service'' of title II of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118
Stat. 2823) shall remain available until expended.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be agreed to on
a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1812) was agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. 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.
____________________