[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 143 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12220-S12228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
    ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
                 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the conference report to accompany the Agriculture 
appropriations bill; provided further that following the completion of 
that debate it be laid aside, that the vote occur on adoption of the 
conference report tomorrow morning immediately following the remarks of 
the two leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it is my understanding we now have 2 
hours equally divided to discuss the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Once the clerk reports the conference report 
by title, that is correct.
  The clerk will now report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the 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, having met, have agreed that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
     and agree to the same with an amendment and the Senate agree 
     to the same, signed by a majority of conferees on the part of 
     both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in 
the Record of October 26, 2005.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the following Senators on our side be allowed 
to speak on the conference report: Senator Burns for up to 15 minutes; 
Senators Enzi, Craig, and Thomas for up to 10 minutes each; Senator 
Thune for up to 7 minutes; and Senator Cornyn for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I assume the request means 
we will go back and forth in rotation across the aisle.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, that is my understanding. This is the 
reservation of time on my side so that Senators will know the time is 
reserved for them, and if one Senator might otherwise be tempted to run 
on, the order can be called so that every Senator will have his right 
for speaking reserved. It does anticipate time will go back and forth 
between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2744, which provides funds for the 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission for fiscal year 2006.
  I will mention a few highlights of the bill to demonstrate why it 
benefits not just farmers and ranchers but every constituent of the 
Members of the Senate.
  On nutrition, this bill provides for more than $12.6 billion in child 
nutrition programs, $5.2 billion for the Women, Infants and Children 
nutrition program, and nearly $108.3 million for the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program.
  I know particularly in response to Katrina that there has been great 
concern about WIC in the country as a whole. This bill funds WIC.
  For the farmers, ranchers, and conservation, there is more than $2 
billion in farm ownership and operating loans, $840 million for 
conservation operations, and more than $1 billion total for all USDA 
conservation programs.
  For those of us who are concerned about research, there is more than 
$2.5 billion for research on nutrition, crop and animal production, 
bioenergy, genetics, and food safety.
  There is funding for cooperative research with agriculture and 
forestry schools in every State and with Native Americans, Hispanic, 
and historically Black centers of learning, and extension programs that 
teach nutrition in low-income communities.
  In pest and disease control, there is more than $820 million to 
protect American agriculture, forests, and horticulture from plant and 
animal diseases.
  For those interested in rural development, the bill provides for 
nearly $5 billion in single and multifamily housing in rural areas, and 
more than $6 billion in electric and telecommunications loans.
  Turning to the Food and Drug Administration, there is a $62 million 
increase over fiscal year 2005, with key increases of $10 million for 
drug safety, $7.8 million for medical device review, and $10 million 
for food safety. Overall, however, the spending level remains 
consistent with the previous year and does not represent for the entire 
bill a major spending increase.
  I ask for the support of all Senators for this conference report.
  I reserve whatever time may be left after the Senators have exercised 
their rights.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
appropriations conference report for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
FDA, and related agencies.
  Our conference allocation of just over $17 billion was a $258 million 
reduction from the Senate-passed level, but I think we did a good job 
preserving the Senate priorities. This bill contains funding vital for 
research, conservation, nutrition programs, rural development, and the 
Food and Drug Administration. Some of the bill's highlights include the 
following:
  For research programs, including the Agricultural Research Service 
and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
the bill provides an increase of nearly $66 million to support work on 
solutions to many problems faced by farmers--including research 
programs for BSE or mad cow disease, Johne's Disease, soybean rust, and 
countless other programs.
  The conservation title of this bill contains funding for important 
watershed improvements, including soil and water erosion control, flood 
control, and watershed dam rehabilitation. The Natural Resources 
Conservation Service received an increase in this conference report of 
more than $12 million over last year.
  Nutrition programs also received increases over last year in this 
conference report. Child nutrition programs receive $12.6 billion, an 
increase of more than $870 million to provide school lunches to low-
income kids. The WIC program received $5.257 million, an increase of 
nearly $22 million, and language proposed by the administration to 
restrict eligibility and cap administrative funds was not included.

[[Page S12221]]

The Food Stamp Program received an increase of more than $5.5 billion, 
and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program received an increase over 
last year as well.
  In the rural development title, more than $700 million is provided 
for the Rural Community Advancement Program. The Rural Housing Service 
received an increase of $105 million above last year's level, bringing 
the total loan authorization level of more than $5 billion to provide 
housing to low-income rural Americans.
  The Food and Drug Administration received nearly $1.5 billion this 
bill, an increase of nearly $40 million over last year's level. This 
includes increases for medical device review, drug safety, food defense 
and BSE.
  The bill Senators have before them is a product of multiple hearings, 
regular proceedings in both the House and Senate, nearly a 3-hour 
conference meeting, and countless staff hours. While this may seem 
unremarkable, it is, in fact, the first time since the fiscal year 2002 
bill that the Agriculture appropriations bill has come through this 
process in the regular order.
  At the end of the day, while not perfect, I believe we have produced 
a good bill, one that comes as a result of much hard work and 
compromise on all sides.
  I thank Senator Bennett and his staff--John Ziolkowski, Fitz Elder, 
Hunter Moorhead, Dianne Preece, and Stacey McBride--for once again 
working with my staff as closely as they did.
  On my side, I thank Galen Fountain, Jessica Arden, Bill Simpson, and 
Tom Gonzales worked very hard as well. Together both sides made every 
effort to protect Democratic priorities, as well as Republican 
priorities, for the good of everyone. I believe the strong bipartisan 
relationship we have on this subcommittee has resulted in a bill for 
which all Senators should be proud to vote.
  I urge Senators to do just that and vote in favor of adopting this 
conference report.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that time be 
allotted for the following Senators to speak on this conference report 
on the Democratic side: 5 minutes for Senator Murray, 10 minutes for 
Senator Dorgan, and 15 minutes for Senator Harkin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that did not 
survive the conference, and I am hopeful we can replace it. I am 
talking about the country-of-origin labeling. As we know, a couple of 
years ago we put that provision in our Agriculture bill. I was one of 
the original sponsors of the country-of-origin labeling. It is 
reasonable and something we ought to do.
  In the meantime, we seem to have delayed it, we seem to have set it 
back. That is what has happened again in this bill. It seems to me we 
ought to move back to the original purpose and get it back in place.
  It is very important that we deal with this issue as we look forward 
to the trade meetings. We are shortly going to be going to Doha and we 
have gone to Hong Kong. This is one of the issues being talked about in 
agriculture and agricultural trade and, quite frankly, the nature of 
trade in this world is such that we are going to see more and more 
trade of agricultural products. As that happens, it is legitimate for 
the consumers in this country to say: I want a product that was made in 
the United States and to be able to know that.
  We do this on lots of products. We do it now on fish and shellfish, 
and it appears to be working. We ought to do it as well on livestock. 
There is a variety of products that have come in. We will see more and 
more of it around the world as time goes on.
  We are very proud of our livestock program in the United States, 
certainly the healthy part of it, the acceptable part of it for 
markets. I think we are going to see more of a tendency toward 
marketing these products because of the health issues, so there is no 
reason why they cannot be marked as well for their country of origin. 
It is important we do that, that we get away from this idea of simply 
prolonging it and setting it off, and that we come to grips with 
letting the bill that has already been passed and accepted come into 
place.
  This business of delaying does not seem to be right. It was supposed 
to have been implemented in 2004, and it was designed to do that. It 
was delayed for 2 years, until 2006. The appropriations bill before us 
delays it again until 2008.
  There are two points I wish to make. One, it is a valid concern and 
something we should be doing. It is good for the market, it is good for 
agriculture, it is certainly good for consumers, it helps us be 
stronger in the international trade situation, and it is something we 
ought to do.
  Furthermore, it is not proper to be simply setting it back, to have 
it as an amendment on these bills and move it back another couple of 
years.
  The last time the Senate voted on COOL was in November of 2003. The 
vote was 58 to 36 in support of mandatory COOL.
  This has been very disappointing. I happen to know there are other 
Senators in the Chamber who would like to talk about this topic, so I 
will not take any longer.
  I close by saying we need to take a look at the future of 
agriculture, we need to take a look at the future of world trade, and 
we need to take a look at the opportunity for consumers in this country 
to choose where their products come from.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about an 
issue that affects Americans all across the country, and that is the 
credibility of the FDA.
  I thank Senator Bennett and Senator Enzi, who are both here, for 
their work in a bipartisan fashion on the language that was put into 
the Agriculture appropriations bill. I also thank Senator Kohl for his 
help.
  Every time I come to the floor to talk about the FDA and plan B, I 
hope it will be the last time. I continue to hope that the FDA and HHS 
will do the right thing and put science, safety, and efficacy over 
politics. Unfortunately, over the past couple of years, I, along with 
millions of Americans, have been disappointed time and time again.
  I have always supported a strong and independent Food and Drug 
Administration. It is the only way in which the FDA can truly operate 
effectively and with the confidence of American consumers and health 
care providers. Americans have to have faith that when they walk into 
their pharmacy or their local grocery store that the products they 
purchase are safe and effective and that their approval has been based 
on sound science, not on political pressure, not on pandering to 
interest groups.
  That is why the application process for plan B emergency 
contraceptives has been so troubling to me.
  Back in December 2003, 2 years ago, the FDA's own scientific advisory 
board overwhelmingly recommended approval of plan B over-the-counter 
application by a vote of 23 to 4. But the FDA has not adhered to its 
guidelines for drug approval and continues to drag its heels.
  In fact, Alastair Wood, who is a member of that advisory panel, said:

       What's disturbing is that the science was overwhelming 
     here, and the FDA is supposed to make decisions based on 
     science.

  It is obvious to me--to many of my colleagues--and to millions of 
American women that something other than science is going on now at the 
FDA, and it is far past time to get to the bottom of it.
  That is why I am especially pleased that I have been able to secure 
bipartisan language in the Agriculture appropriations conference report 
that expresses the sense of both bodies of Congress that enough is 
enough.
  The language simply says:

       The conferees remain concerned about the legal and 
     regulatory issues relating to approval of drugs as both 
     prescription drugs and over the counter products, and urge 
     the FDA to expedite rulemaking on this topic.

  If the leaders of FDA and HHS refuse to take the steps to restore the 
confidence of the American consumers and FDA's ability to promote safe 
treatments, then Congress has to step in. The health and well-being of 
the American people should not blow with the political winds. Caring 
for our people is an American issue, and part of that goal is ensuring 
we have access to safe, effective medicines in a timely fashion.

[[Page S12222]]

  How can we trust the FDA to move quickly on vaccines for global 
pandemics if they continue to operate the way they have on plan B?
  Time and time again, I, along with Senator Clinton of New York and 
others, have asked simply for a decision on plan B. We have not asked 
for a yes or a no, just a decision. This continued foot-dragging is 
unusual, it is unwarranted, and it is unprofessional. This continued 
delay goes against everything the FDA's own advisory panel found nearly 
2 years ago: that plan B is safe, effective, and should be available 
over the counter. There is no credible scientific reason to continue to 
deny increased access to this safe health care option, but there is 
even less reason to deny an answer.
  Yesterday marked another deadline in the approval process for plan B. 
Yesterday was the last day of the highly unusual 60-day comment period 
that was asked for by FDA. Senator Clinton and I joined with nearly 
10,000 Americans in calling on the FDA to take a real step toward 
closing the agency's credibility gap by making a prompt decision based 
on scientific evidence.
  I am on the floor tonight to say I hope the FDA does just that. The 
language we secured in this conference report is a good step, but it is 
not the last word on this issue. The problem with politics subverting 
the FDA's adherence to science and its integrity is so profound and so 
urgent that I intend to use every tool available to me as a Senator to 
make sure this discussion about our priorities and our future is not 
lost.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I will assume I was next in the queue. I thank the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture for bringing this 
conference report up. You know, I just want to point out to the 
American people that even though the total of this bill is $100 
billion--That's--I rounded that off a little bit--only $25 billion gets 
to production agriculture. We could add in some conservation programs 
and watershed and this type of thing and probably get that up a little 
higher but not a lot.
  What I am trying to say, better than half of this bill does not go to 
the farm and ranch producing community in this country, and yet the 
bill is $100 billion.
  I have been on the Appropriations Committee since 1993. For 12 years, 
I have served with my colleagues in this body and have gone through a 
lot of conferences. I have chaired some. I have been ranking in some. 
There are a lot of good things in this bill that help my State of 
Montana and agriculture across this Nation, but if there is one 
shortcoming--I say, not very much of it gets to the farmers and 
ranchers out of this $100 billion. I was a county commissioner. I 
understand WIC. I understand nutrition programs. I understand food 
stamps for those folks who really need help. I'll tell you what, it is 
born in every one of us who comes out of the farm and ranch community: 
we do not like to see people hungry. We have always been like that.
  With regard to this conference, we had four or five items that were 
very important that we have to address in this body, and we were closed 
down. Categorical exemptions, which my friend from Idaho just spoke on 
a few minutes ago, in forest rehabilitation, forest legacy, forest 
health--all of those programs are designed to help our timber 
communities take advantage of the great resource that is around them, 
and also it does a lot for fire prevention.
  Another thing about this amendment we had on the prevention of the 
slaughter of horses for human consumption, we did not get that 
resolved. I invite any of my friends who voted for that amendment to 
come to my office and answer the phones because I'll tell you what, 
last Saturday there was a horse sale in Billings. If anything prompts 
some calls, just let somebody go to the next horse sale.
  Then we got down to the country of origin labeling that was put into 
law and signed by the President of the United States in the 2002 farm 
bill. It is the law of the land, and an overwhelming majority of both 
this body and the House of Representatives voted to put it there. Yet 
we are denied the money to write the rules and regulations and 
implement the law and put it into effect.
  This year, they just said: We are going to go voluntary for 2 more 
years. I am going to tell you something, that has not worked. Now, 
there is nothing done here that is done in the dark of night. It is the 
law. Did we accomplish getting it implemented in this bill? No, we are 
delayed for two more years.
  What is even worse, there was no debate and no vote in the conference 
committee while the conference was going on. Just like I said, I have 
chaired conference committees on appropriations, and we did not leave 
that room until all of the issues that were still on the table were 
dealt with, folks got to debate them, we listened to them, and we got 
an up-or-down vote.
  I am not really concerned about the results of a vote; I am concerned 
about a vote. So this was something that was done that absolutely was 
beyond my belief.
  We know that our cattle producers are pretty proud of their product. 
They produce a good product. We do not feed a lot of cattle in Montana, 
but we raise a lot of feeder cattle. They go to Colorado, Kansas, and 
Nebraska to be finished out. They produce a great product for America's 
dinner tables, the greatest source of protein we have in our diet. They 
also want to know where it comes from, and that is being denied our 
producers today.
  I heard from my colleagues who say they should delay COOL until the 
farm bill. They say the law will not work and we need to rewrite it. I 
agree with some of that, but there are provisions right now that are in 
the current labeling law that need to be implemented.
  So I seriously doubt that any of my cattle producers can be convinced 
at this point that Congress intends to make a good-faith effort to 
improve the law as it stands today. We have had three years to work on 
that law, and the only thing Congress has delivered to the hard-working 
ranchers in my country is one delay after another, and that is 
unacceptable.
  We have given the meat packers years to volunteer and voluntarily 
label the meat. Not one packer has done that. Now, we have labeling on 
that. We have certified Angus beef, and we have a lot of house brands 
and house labels and some breeds of cattle promote their production, 
but nothing says ``USA.'' These delays are not designed to help us 
improve this important law; they are just a way that the packers get 
their way.
  In all likelihood, this evening the Senate will debate this issue, 
and tomorrow we will pass this conference report. I did not sign the 
report, and I shall vote against it tomorrow even though there are some 
very good things in here, but enough is enough.
  Given the hysteria of the meat packers, one would think that COOL 
assistance would destroy the whole industry, and one would think origin 
labeling is some outlandish, unheard of concept when it has been around 
for the last four years. Packers whine about labeling products in the 
United States, and the packers are engaged in country-of-origin 
labeling in foreign markets. I do not see what the difference is? It 
feels to me like you have been discriminated against for your product? 
And those who do not want labeling, are you not proud of your product? 
Are you afraid to put your brand on it? Afraid to put a label on it? 
What is the problem?
  Most of our major trading partners require country-of-origin labeling 
on imported beef and beef products. I could go all night about the 
situation in which we find ourselves in regarding to beef trade with 
Japan. We took a pretty tough stand. I believe that it is time that 
markets be opened.
  New Zealand passed a COOL law just last week at the very same time 
that this conference was shirking its duty to the American cattle 
producers.
  By the way, New Zealand is not afraid to put a label on their lamb. 
One can go to any grocery store, and the package says, ``New Zealand 
lamb.'' They are proud of that product. Yet we do not want to do that. 
Consumers in the United States do not deserve to know where their beef 
comes from, but foreign consumers do. That is the message we are 
sending on this conference report tonight.
  We know that foreign consumers demand U.S. beef. It is pretty plain. 
I have talked to the consumers in Japan. They are getting ready to 
serve these beef bowls. It is the most desired product we ship there. 
Yet by their standards, they have decided to keep

[[Page S12223]]

our product off of their market. They have nerve enough to come here 
and expect us to accept theirs when they have a larger problem than we 
do in that arena. So Congress is telling the producers that they lose 
out again in this conference report with a delay provision put in at 
conference with no debate and no vote.
  I will cast a vote against the conference report when it comes up 
tomorrow. This is a terrible way to do business in the Senate. We can 
do better in this body. We can respect everyone's opinion and 
everybody's amendment and everybody's bill, but give them a vote.

  We are going to talk about a judge one of these days, and we are 
going to say he deserves an up-or-down vote. This issue does, too. 
There is no difference. And we were denied it.
  So I am disappointed, but yet we move along and there will be another 
day when again we will saddle up and try to get this legislation 
implemented, which basically is the law of the land. Make no mistake 
about it, this hurts our credibility. We better start taking our job 
very seriously. Instead, we are taking ourselves too seriously.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I believe I am yielded 10 minutes per the instructions of 
the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first I will say a word about the 
leadership of this subcommittee, Senator Bennett from Utah and my 
colleague, Senator Kohl, from the State of Wisconsin. I appreciate the 
work they have done. This is not easy to do. The product that came out 
of the Senate was a good subcommittee bill. To the chairman, the 
ranking member, and their staffs, I thank them for all of the work they 
have done on this legislation.
  As they might know, while they are complimented, there is something 
that comes behind the compliment. They both know that I did not sign 
the conference report, having nothing to do with their actions or their 
activities. I refused to sign the conference report because of what 
happened in the conference. I wish to describe just a little of that.
  The process by which we went to conference with the U.S. House was 
one in which we expected we would be treated with some respect and we 
would, through the normal course of things, make judgments and 
decisions and have votes. That did not happen. It did not happen on the 
issue especially of the country-of-origin labeling for meat--something 
my colleague just described. This is a commonsense, farmer-friendly, 
rancher-friendly law that has always been opposed by the big meat-
packing plants and those who do their bidding. The fact is, it is the 
law of the land and should have been implemented last year.
  One day, I brought a porterhouse steak to the floor of the Senate. I 
had to ask consent to show it on the Senate floor. I held up a 
porterhouse steak and I said: I would like to know if anybody can tell 
me where this piece of meat came from. Anybody? Well, nobody could tell 
where the piece of meat came from. It is just a piece of raw meat in 
cellophane. It comes from the store.
  I asked the question: Might it have come from this particular packing 
plant? This packing plant, by the way, was only inspected once by a 
USDA inspector. It happens to be in Mexico. Here is what he said he 
found. This is a packing plant sending meat to our country. The 
inspector found:

       Shanks and briskets were contaminated with feces, a U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture official later wrote of his tour of 
     the plant on the floor. In the refrigerator, he wrote, a 
     diseased, condemned carcass was observed ready for boning and 
     distribution in commerce.
       The audit noted paint and viscera containers, condensation 
     from dirty surfaces dripping into the exposed product . . .

  Did anyone know if that piece of meat came from that plant? No one 
could tell because it was not labeled.
  I thought then about something I read when I was in school. Upton 
Sinclair wrote the book ``The Jungle'' in 1906. He described the 
conditions in the packing plants of Chicago. He said:

       There would be meat stored in great piles in rooms; and the 
     water from leaky roofs would drip over it, and thousands of 
     rats would race about on it.

  Then he described how they would lace loaves of bread with poison and 
lay them around, and the rats would eat the poison and die, and they 
would shove it down a hole and grind it up and ship it out as meat.
  People read ``The Jungle'' written by Upton Sinclair and demanded 
something be done in this country, and it was. We have a wholesome 
supply of meat in this country that we are proud of. Our farmers and 
ranchers who produce it have a wholesome supply that is inspected. We 
are proud of it.
  ``The Jungle,'' 1906--I just read what he said in the book. May 1999, 
one inspector goes to Mexico--by the way, he has never gone back. This 
plant was closed, opened immediately thereafter with new owners and a 
new company name, and has never been inspected since. Condensation from 
dirty surfaces dripping into the exposed product . . . Carcass shanks 
and briskets [were] contaminated with feces. . . .

  Does it sound like 1906? Sound like ``The Jungle''? Or if you are 
reading ``The Jungle,'' 1906, by Upton Sinclair:

       There would be meat that had tumbled out on the floor, in 
     the dirt and sawdust, where the workers had tramped and spit 
     uncounted billions of . . . germs.
       The employees' feet touched carcasses . . . a diseased 
     condemned carcass . . . was observed in the chilling room 
     ready for boning and distribution in commerce.

  How much progress have we made?
  So we go to conference and there is a requirement there be meat 
labeling, and the big packing houses and those that do their bidding in 
this Congress say it would be way too complicated.
  We can drive a remote car on the surface of the planet Mars, and we 
can't stick a label on a piece of meat, for god's sake? We did require 
that of seafood. Go to the local grocery store and buy some seafood and 
you will find a label.
  Let me tell you what the manager of the meat department at a 
supermarket had to say about implementing labeling for seafood. On 
April 4, 2005, asked about labeling seafood, this fellow at a 
supermarket said, ``It's just a matter of putting a sticker on the 
package.''
  Not a problem. So why, then, are the American consumers now told, as 
a result of this conference, that not only are you not going to get 
country-of-origin labeling last year when you were supposed to have had 
it--and then we extended it, the folks over there on the House side 
extended it--so now they extended it 2 more years. And they did that 
after they recessed the conference and extended the date for 
implementation of this law--and it is a law--by 2 years, never having a 
vote, never notifying anybody.
  I would expect the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee 
should be furious about that. They probably are. I wrote, by the way, 
the chairman of the conference and said to the chairman of the 
conference: That will only happen once because you will not have a 
second conference in which we sit around and somewhere between the 
issue of thumb-sucking and daydreaming, believe there is a crevice to 
do the right thing.
  If you decide you are not going to allow votes and then get rid of 
the conference and go behind a closed door with one party from one side 
of the Capitol and decide you are going to change the law and shove it 
down everybody's throat, you are only going to get to do that once. The 
next time you go to a conference like that, it is going to be a much 
different circumstance because we now know how at least some are 
willing to treat others in the conference.
  It wasn't so much about treating us, it was about how you are 
treating farmers and ranchers who are proud of what they produce, and 
it is about how you are treating consumers in this country. Oh, in this 
Congress, regrettably, the big interests still have a lot of sway, a 
lot of influence. They somehow at the end of the day get their way. 
They especially get their way when the door is closed, when the lights 
are out; the door is closed, and it is done in secret. And that is 
exactly what happened here. People should be furious about what has 
been shoved down the throats of the Congress as a result of a few 
people in that conference.
  So the result will be bad public policy. The result will be consumers 
consuming food, consuming meat that they do not know the origin of. 
Why? Because the Congress said: You don't

[[Page S12224]]

deserve to know the origin of that meat.
  There is much to say about this subject. My colleague from Montana 
described his disgust. My colleague from Iowa will as well. I probably 
should, in the middle of this angst, say again that this is not the 
fault of the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett. It is not the fault of the 
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. They did not do this.
  My guess is--I have not talked to them at great length--they would 
have provided a conference that is the regular order: have debate and 
have a vote, have a debate and have a vote, and you count the votes 
and, in this system of ours, determine who has the votes and what 
policies prevail.
  That is not what happened with respect to this conference with the 
House, and I regret that. We will have another opportunity. In the 
meantime, the consumers lose, the ranchers lose, the farmers lose 
because those, whose names I don't have in this statement, behind 
closed doors, in secret, decided to pull the rug out from under all of 
those interests.
  I assume they are applauded today by the big economic interests, as 
is always the case in this Congress. But one day soon, I think 
consumers and others will say: There is no cause for applause for you. 
In fact, you really should be doing something else.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I am going to keep the litany going on country-of-origin 
labeling because I am upset, too. I want to speak in opposition to that 
specific provision in the conference report, H.R. 2744, which is the 
Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006.
  The report before the Senate includes an additional 2-year delay--
until September 30, 2008--for the implementation of mandatory country-
of-origin labeling for covered commodities, except for fish. Fish was 
taken care of earlier.
  I am highly frustrated that implementation funding has been stripped 
because this is not the first time the conference committee has 
traveled beyond the scope of its conference. The House bill stripped 
funding for implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat and 
meat products for fiscal year 2006. The Senate bill did not include a 
delay. However, the conference result is a new 2-year delay that will 
keep consumers in the dark about the origin of their food.
  Mandatory country-of-origin labeling was included in the 2002 farm 
bill, yet consumers and producers, except those that catch, raise, or 
eat fish, will not see any benefit from country-of-origin labeling 
before the next farm bill is written. The opponents of labeling claim 
it will cost too much to implement. If we do not provide any funding 
for implementation, they will be right because any cost would be too 
high. I have heard the concerns of those who have responsibilities 
under the law, but those concerns can be addressed.
  I wish to point out I asked how much country-of-origin labeling would 
cost and was told it would be $1.5 billion to keep track of the cows so 
we would know where they came from. There are much simpler systems that 
can be put in place. Canada keeps track of all of this now. But when we 
started having problems with other animals, I asked how much 
an identification system for all animals would cost, and was told that 
it would only cost half a billion. Tell me, how can you keep track of 
every animal in the country for a third of what it costs just to keep 
track of cows? It is bad accounting, if you ask me. It is a plain, 
blatant statement they don't want to do country of origin. Why wouldn't 
they want to? I guess to increase the sale of beef from other 
countries.

  As I discussed this matter with my colleagues, it has become clear 
there is a need for education regarding country-of-origin labeling. 
Many of them were not here when the last farm bill debate was done. For 
those who were, the issue of country-of-origin labeling may not be 
familiar because it was not debated on the Senate floor. Country-of-
origin labeling was included in the bill by way of an Agriculture 
Committee vote, and the final details of the law were worked out during 
a conference with the House.
  For those of my colleagues who were not personally familiar with the 
topic, they should not excuse themselves from consideration of this 
important issue because their State doesn't have significant numbers of 
livestock producers or farmers. I have livestock producers in my State, 
but I care about country-of-origin labeling because I am a consumer of 
agricultural products. I am sure that all of us have a lot of consumers 
of agricultural products in our States, so it should be a concern of 
every State. Everybody ought to be researching this. Everybody ought to 
be concerned that we do not have labeling.
  Country-of-origin labeling is relevant for agricultural producers, 
for consumers, and even for the Members of the Senate. In fact, the 
country-of-origin labeling law is based on the Consumer Right To Know 
Act of 2001, which I cosponsored. The law requires the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture to put in place a system for U.S. retailers to inform 
their customers, when they buy beef, lamb, pork, or other perishable 
agricultural commodities, from what country the product originated.
  Food labeling can help increase consumer confidence by assuring 
consumers they are making informed and knowledgeable decisions about 
the products they buy. People know that the United States has the best, 
cleanest, and safest system for processing beef. Consumers should know 
if the meat they are bringing home to feed their family has been 
produced here or if it was imported from a country that may have fewer 
environmental, health, or safety regulations on livestock production.
  The country-of-origin labeling law is not a new concept in the world. 
Most U.S. trade partners, including the EU, require country-of-origin 
labeling for food. Many of the laws in other nations are more rigorous 
than the U.S. law. Virtually every other item a consumer buys in the 
United States indicates a country of origin.
  I understand that some people say we do not need to have country-of-
origin labeling when the USDA is already moving forward on a national 
animal identification program. I have mentioned that I am fascinated by 
its cost. This is simply not the case. A national ID program will be 
useful for health safety reasons. It will help pinpoint and track the 
spread of disease, but this information will not be passed on to the 
consumer. Tracking disease is not the only concern. Providing 
information to consumers should also be a priority, and the only 
consumer-focused program is country-of-origin labeling. That is a 
priority for me.
  After the first 2-year country-of-origin implementing delay was added 
during an appropriations conference almost 2 years ago, I joined other 
Senators in cosponsoring legislation to move the implementation date 
closer to the present. With this second 2-year delay, it is readily 
apparent that opponents of country-of-origin labeling are using this 
delay tactic to gut country-of-origin labeling. Rather than meeting us 
for an open debate on the merits of the law, they continually put it 
off and allow it to work through the House process. By saying we need 
more time to implement the law, they are making the law voluntary.
  Time is one thing that the debate surrounding country of origin has 
had. This issue was debated in the years before its inclusion in the 
farm bill. Since the law was passed, 2 years were granted for 
rulemaking to ensure its thorough implementation. We have already had a 
2-year delay. Removing funding for implementation did not improve the 
process, it stopped the process cold. For those who have genuine 
concerns regarding implementation of the country-of-origin labeling, 
the answer is not to put off implementing the law but to implement it 
properly.
  I wish to remind my colleagues why mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling passed in the farm bill. Consumers and producers want the 
information that it will provide. Consumers want to know.
  Personally I am more of a food consumer than a food producer, but as 
a shoe store owner, I could tell you where the shoes I sold were from. 
It was required.
  My dad used to travel on the road and sell some shoes. They were 
Ball-Band rubber footwear. There was a little dispute that came up at 
one point in time on that because they had to be labeled if they were 
made in the United States, and other countries were not allowed to use 
that label. But in Japan, they started another little town, and they 
named it Usa, U-S-A with no dots

[[Page S12225]]

after the letters. Then they could say their boots were made in USA, 
which looked like U.S.A.
  Other people are jealous of the labeling that we have. We require 
that kind of labeling so our consumers know where their shoes or boots 
or shirts or hats--things that don't hurt them nearly as much as what 
goes inside their body--are from. As a father, I could tell you where 
the clothes I bought for my children were made. I have to say, I would 
rather have known more about what I was putting into my growing kids 
than what I was putting on my growing kids.
  It is really simple. Artists sign their work, authors pen their books 
with pride, and American ranchers and farmers want to sign their work, 
too. They want consumers to know they are proud of what they have 
produced. They are convinced the people of this country want U.S. beef, 
U.S. pork, and U.S. lamb.
  Although I appreciate the work done by this conference on other 
important provisions for agriculture, and I appreciate the work they 
did on some of the issues that have already been mentioned, because of 
this critical issue to a huge industry in my State, I will be voting 
against final passage.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I hope not to use all time because others want to speak, 
also.
  I want to take a few minutes to lay out my reasons for my vote on 
this conference report tomorrow.
  First of all, there are many aspects of the bill that I do support 
and which I believe should become law. I believe Senator Bennett and 
Senator Kohl worked very hard to get this bill through.
  I supported the bill as it was reported from committee and as it 
passed the Senate. I believe it was a good bill given the 
subcommittee's allocation when it passed the Senate, and I said so on 
the Senate floor. But, unfortunately, the conference process with the 
House was seriously flawed and resulted in a seriously flawed report as 
a result.
  In some instances, it is as if the House were negotiating with the 
administration rather than allowing the Senate any meaningful role.
  My greatest concern is the continued assault on the farm bill's 
mandatory conservation programs, particularly the Conservation Security 
Program. As passed by the Senate, this bill included no annual cap on 
CSP spending. That is as it is in the 6-year farm bill which was passed 
in 2002 and signed by the President: no annual cap on CSP funds. So the 
Congressional Budget Office's baseline estimate for CSP spending in 
fiscal 2006 was $331 million based upon the program's mandatory funding 
and no set annual spending cap, as was passed in the farm bill.
  While the other body included an extremely low cap of $245 million 
for CSP in 2006, traditionally, we usually attempt to kind of split the 
difference on matters such as this. But in this instance, rather than 
splitting the difference between the House and Senate--the conferees 
evidently chose to split the difference between the President's budget 
proposal to cap CSP at $274 million and the $245 million cap in the 
House bill for a conference level of $259 million. That is far below 
the $288 million that would have resulted from splitting the difference 
between the House and Senate figures.
  In effect, the will of the Senate as expressed in the bill that we 
passed by a vote of 97 to 2 was totally thwarted.
  Since the farm bill was enacted in 2002, the USDA conservation 
programs have taken a real beating year after year. They have been used 
repeatedly as a source offsets to fund other needs.
  Including this conference report, the annual appropriations measures 
from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006 have cut $1.13 billion 
in mandatory funds that we dedicated to conservation in the farm bill.
  In addition to that, last fall, a further $3 billion was taken out of 
the Conservation Security Program to pay for disaster assistance. And 
in the Senate budget reconciliation measure now pending a further $1.78 
billion would be taken away from conservation over the next 10 fiscal 
years--over $1.2 billion of that from the Conservation Security Program 
alone.
  Again, here is a chart that illustrates what we are talking about.
  If you look at Agriculture appropriations, those bills have cut, from 
fiscal year 2003 through 2006, $1.13 billion. Here on the chart is $3 
billion which was an offset taken out of the Conservation Security 
Program to pay for disaster assistance.
  Mind you, prior to the past few years, when we have had disasters in 
this country that require extraordinary amounts of disaster assistance 
we have paid for the assistance out of the general fund. When there is 
a tornado, a hurricane, or a flood--whatever it might be--we don't rob 
programs that are particularly important to one group of Americans in 
order to pay for the disaster assistance. We paid for the disaster 
assistance out of the general fund.
  Yet when we had a drought disaster in this country that affected many 
States in the West and Midwest, the money to pay for disaster 
assistance was taken from the Conservation Security Program to pay for 
it. That was strongly pushed by the administration and the House. Many 
times on the floor I said that was wrong. I objected to it. But that is 
what happened. They took the money out of agriculture conservation to 
pay for disaster assistance. It was wrong then; it is wrong now to do 
that.
  Then on top of those cuts, in the Senate budget reconciliation 
measure, another $1.78 billion would be taken out of conservation.
  So what we have here is cumulative, $5.9 billion taken out of 
conservation programs in measures before us just since fiscal year 
2003.
  Again, I might add that conservation is part of the bill that was 
loudly praised by President Bush when he signed the farm bill. I was 
there at the signing. The President said this is a great bill, 
especially the conservation provisions. The Department of Agriculture 
put out publications on the farm bill highlighting conservation. Yet 
since the farm bill as passed, in measures passed or now before the 
Senate $5.9 billion will be taken out of conservation programs.
  Again, I want to emphasize this conservation funding taken away is 
mandatory spending in the farm bill as to which we met all of the 
budget requirements when we passed the farm bill. We met all of the 
budget requirements. It was within the budget allocation provided to us 
when we passed the farm bill.
  In earlier debate today on the reconciliation bill, I heard a lot of 
talk about the importance of not reopening the farm bill. That was the 
debate on the amendment offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan 
on payment limitations. I heard a lot of talk about not reopening the 
farm bill. Sorry folks. The farm bill has already been reopened many 
times regarding on conservation, and other programs for that matter.
  To complain about an amendment limiting payments to those getting 
hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from farm programs, to 
complain that this is reopening the farm bill is a bogus argument.
  Where were their voices last year, the year before, and the year 
before when all of this money was being taken out of the farm bill, out 
of mandatory spending? Why didn't I hear their voices on the Senate 
floor saying we can't reopen the farm bill? There was not a peep from 
them.
  But now when it is proposed to limit payments to the largest farmers 
in America to meet some of our budget reconciliation requirements, they 
don't want to reopen the farm bill. We should never have reopened it to 
take money out of it to pay for disasters.
  I have a number of other concerns. I joined with those who are upset 
about the country-of-origin labeling provision. During the debate on 
the 2002 farm bill--I was chairman at the time--there was a bipartisan 
effort. We included country-of-origin labeling for meats, fruits, 
vegetables, peanuts, and fish. I supported it then, and I support it 
now. It makes sense. Producers in our country ought to be able to add 
value by differentiating the origin of their products. Consumers ought 
to have the power of information of

[[Page S12226]]

choice. Unfortunately, the will of producers and consumers has been 
ignored, behind closed doors, without debate, without a hearing, 
without votes. Country-of-origin labeling for meats, fruits, 
vegetables, and peanuts has now been delayed until September 30, 2008, 
after this farm bill expires.
  They just want to kill country-of-origin labeling altogether, in the 
next farm bill--and in the meantime by rewriting the farm bill in the 
appropriations process. It has gotten out of hand. It is making a 
mockery of the both the authorization and the appropriations process.
  I happen to serve on both authorizing committees and the 
appropriations committee. They both have a legitimate role to play. To 
have the authorization committee usurp the power of the appropriations 
committee is just as wrong as to have the appropriations committee 
undercut and make a mockery of the authorization process. But that is 
what the House did.
  I don't mind losing if you have fair debate and if you have fair 
votes. If you lose, you lose. To me, that is democracy. I don't mind 
that. What I object to is when the House of Representatives, the 
chairman of the House subcommittee, bangs the gavel and says we will 
meet subject to the call of the Chair, and we never meet. They go 
behind closed doors and they do this. They take away country-of-origin 
labeling, they put limits on conservation, and I don't even get a 
chance to vote on it. No one gets a chance to vote on it. They say, 
take it or leave it. That is what I object to.
  I am also concerned that the same back-door process I am describing 
was used to amend the Organic Foods Production Act. Earlier this year, 
the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down three final rules for 
the National Organic Program. I urged the organic community to come 
together and reach a consensus on what was needed to respond to the 
court decision. That didn't happen. Some people were left out of the 
process.
  Last month, Senator Leahy offered an amendment to our Agriculture 
appropriations bill as a placeholder in the hope that the organic 
community would have more time to discuss these proposed changes in the 
law, and reach a consensus which we could then put into the conference 
report. Unfortunately, this conference report complicates what was 
already a complicated and sticky issue.
  Again, behind closed doors, without a single vote or debate, the 
Organic Foods Production Act was amended at the behest of large food 
processors without the benefit of the organic community reaching a 
compromise.
  To rush provisions into the law that have not been properly vetted, 
that fail to close loopholes, and that do not reflect a consensus 
undermines the integrity of the National Organic Program.
  The Agriculture appropriations conference report also strikes a 
provision adopted by the full Senate that would limit contracting out 
to private companies to carry out the Food Stamp Program.
  Again, this amendment was adopted without objection by the full 
Senate. It was reaffirmed by Senate conferees. We did have a vote. The 
Senate conferees voted to uphold the Senate side. The issue went to the 
House conferees, and that was the end of it. Usually you work these 
things out in conference. Again, the chairman gaveled the conference 
shut, went behind closed doors, and threw out the provision.
  Here is the hypocrisy of that. In the Agriculture appropriations 
bill, there is a limit, a prohibition against any money being used to 
contract out to private companies for the operation of the rural 
development programs or farm loan programs. So those programs can't be 
privatized. But already the Department of Agriculture is approving 
private contracting for Federal food assistance applications.
  Again, I guess the needs of the poor don't warrant the same kind of 
protection other clients of USDA receive.
  There are other problems with this bill. I am disappointed that the 
measure eliminates or reduces funding for a variety of programs in the 
farm bill's rural development title. For example, there is a major 
reduction in the value added development grants.
  Fortunately, the bill does call for revamping the rural broadband 
loan program. Clearly this is a technology that needs to be available. 
We need to have rural broadband access for economic development.
  I am thankful to the chairman and others for the inclusion of 
numerous projects that help promote biofuels and bioproducts, which 
have a lot of promise for this country. I also commend them for 
including funding for the national animal disease facilities at Ames, 
IA.
  One last thing I would mention is that Congress provides money in 
this bill for Public Law 480, the title II Food for Peace Program, the 
largest foreign food aid program of the U.S. government. The funding in 
this conference report is the same as last year, but that was not 
enough to meet both massive emergency food aid needs and to provide the 
needed funding for development assistance. Quite frankly, I am 
concerned that the administration in its budget proposal--which is the 
basis for this appropriations measure is seriously shorting the 
development assistance projects under Food for Peace.
  In many cases, investment in mitigating chronic food needs in 
developing countries in 1 year may avert the need for much higher 
emergency food aid in later years.
  For example, one of the countries where USAID development projects 
were cut back earlier in 2005 was Niger, a country which by summer was 
experiencing a serious shortage in food availability, which prompted a 
flash appeal for emergency assistance by the U.N.'s World Food Program 
in August.
  On the other hand, I am pleased that funding for the McGovern-Dole 
Food for Education Program has been boosted to $100 million for fiscal 
year 2006.
  Again, there are good things in this bill. The bill is not totally 
bad. But I have a lot of objections to the process on which the House 
proceeded and the outcomes in the conference report that resulted from 
the process. This is not the way to do things.
  This sort of sort of one-sided process, behind-closed-doors process 
is a sharp break from the normal practice in appropriations conference 
deliberations. It sets a terrible precedent.
  For the reasons I have outlined, especially for all of the money 
being taken out of conservation, for the further delay of COOL, the 
country-of-origin labeling, and other problems I mentioned, it pains 
me, and I don't like to vote against the conference report. I have 
great respect for the chairman and the ranking member. As I said, they 
did a good job. But what came back from the House is not good for our 
farmers or rural communities, it is not good for consumers, and it is 
not good for conservation.
  For those reasons, I will sadly have to vote against this conference 
report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, country-of-origin labeling has been an 
issue in the Senate for quite awhile, and yet, after all this time, 
we're no closer to promoting U.S. products than we were a decade ago. 
In reviewing the storied history of this issue, it is clear that there 
is no shortage of viewpoints. One view that has been overwhelmingly 
vocalized is that U.S. producers of beef and pork want to market and 
promote their products as born and raised in the United States of 
America. They are proud of what they produce, and they should be: the 
U.S. produces the safest, most abundant food supply at the most 
affordable price, and our livestock producers want to capture the value 
they add to the market.
  But just like every other debate in Washington, the debate over 
country-of-origin labeling has been about the means to accomplish the 
goal. It is not that we are fighting about whether or not promoting 
U.S. products is a good idea. We are fighting about how to do it. Some 
in the U.S. Senate, and some around the country have said: ``If it 
isn't mandatory, it's not labeling,'' or that the current mandatory 
labeling law that passed in the 2002 Farm Bill is the only way labeling 
will work. I strongly disagree.
  The current mandatory law is an example of a good idea gone awry. The 
warning signs of the negative impact of this law have long been on the 
horizon. On a number of occasions the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
the Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Management and 
Budget have

[[Page S12227]]

published reports and studies, and testified before Congress about the 
burdens of mandatory country-of-origin labeling.
  In 1999, GAD testified before Congress that ``there is going to be 
significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement'' of 
mandatory labeling.
  The next year, GAO released another study indicating that.

       U.S. Packers, processors, and grocers would . . . pass 
     their compliance costs back to their suppliers . . . in the 
     form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of 
     higher retail prices. And when USDA issued its proposed rule, 
     they included a cost-benefit analysis that said 
     implementation could cost up to $4 billion--with no 
     quantifiable benefit. The rule was followed by a letter 
     from the Director of Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs at OMB, Dr. John Graham, which said ``this is one 
     of the most burdensome rules to be reviewed by this 
     Administration.''

  Not surprisingly, these predictions were recently realized when 
several processors, preparing for implementation of mandatory labeling 
in September 2006, sent their suppliers letters spelling out the 
arduous procedures that would be employed to verify animal origin, 
ensure compliance, and indemnify the processors from liability for 
inaccurate information.
  Given these ominous warnings, many of my constituents are rightly 
concerned about the financial and record keeping burdens this law will 
impose on them. They ask:

       How can something so popular, like marketing and promoting 
     U.S. products be so expensive?

  There has to be a better way to market and promote U.S. products. I 
am pleased that the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2006 
Agriculture Appropriations Act contains a provision that will delay 
implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling until 2008 
because it gives us 2 more years to enact a meaningful, cost-effective 
labeling program like the Meat Promotion Act of 2005, which I 
introduced with 13 of my colleagues earlier this year. This bipartisan, 
commonsense legislation would establish a voluntary country-of-origin 
labeling program driven by the free-market, not the rigid legal 
interpretations of Federal bureaucrats.
  I stand with livestock producers that want to market and promote the 
products they proudly raise. I believe they should be able to market 
and promote their products as born, raised, and processed in the United 
States, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 provides the most 
effective and efficient opportunity for them to do so, while adding 
value to their bottom line and helping the economy of rural America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise, too, on behalf of South Dakota's 
cattle producers to voice my support for country-of-origin labeling and 
also to express my profound disappointment in the tactics that were 
employed to derail country-of-origin labeling in the bill under 
consideration this evening.
  I have been a supporter of mandatory country-of-origin labeling since 
first being elected to the House of Representatives in 1996. I offered 
the country-of-origin labeling amendment in the House Agricultural 
Committee 2002 farm bill deliberations. Figuratively speaking, that was 
a bloody battle. Anyone who was in the room will tell you we spent 4 
hours fighting over this issue about whether to include country-of-
origin labeling in the 2002 farm bill. The truth of the matter is, even 
though at that particular point in the process we were not able to get 
included in the House farm bill, we were later on, when the bill went 
into conference with the Senate, the Senate adopted a provision, and we 
were able to retain that provision. So when the 2002 farm bill 
conference report was reported to the floor of the House and the 
Senate, it included mandatory country-of-origin labeling. It was passed 
overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate, put on the President's desk 
and signed into law. In fact, it was signed into law by the President 
back on May 13, 2002.
  I assumed at that time that we had achieved a major victory for the 
ranchers that we represent, the cattle producers in places such as 
South Dakota and other areas of the country. Unfortunately, I was 
wrong.
  Even though country-of-origin labeling has been the law of the land 
since that day, it has been on the receiving end of an onslaught of 
attacks and delays. Where I come from, a deal is a deal. The Congress, 
the elected Representatives of the people of this country, through the 
2002 farm bill, adopted a provision that would implement mandatory 
country-of-origin labeling. Under the 2002 farm bill, country-of-origin 
labeling was set to be implemented by September in 2004. The fiscal 
year 2004 agriculture appropriations bill--and at that time I was not 
in the Congress--delayed implementation until September of 2006. And 
now the conference report we have before the Senate today will delay it 
even further, until 2008.
  It always ends up being done in the dark of night. As was noted 
earlier by several of my colleagues in the Senate, the House 
negotiators came to this process and walked away from the table, not 
even giving us an opportunity to debate this in the light of the day. 
It would be great to have the debate on the floor, but even in the 
conference there was not an opportunity for Members of the Senate to 
have their voices heard through a vote on that particular provision.
  If you want to rewrite the 2002 farm bill, don't do it in a 
conference committee, for crying out loud. Let's do it in the light of 
day. Let's at least give the members in the conference committee an 
opportunity to vote up or down on this issue. I believe if the members 
of that conference committee had that opportunity, those in favor of 
country-of-origin labeling would have prevailed.
  I have heard the arguments against mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling more times than I can count. While I respect my colleagues and 
their views, I disagree with those who oppose this program and wish to 
delay it to death.
  My colleague from Texas suggested this is a bad thing, we cannot 
implement this. How do we know? We have not implemented it yet. We 
passed the law. The people's representatives of the Congress spoke out 
in favor and made it part of the 2002 farm bill. We have lots of 
people, naysayers, now saying it will never work. How do we know? It 
has never been implemented.
  The deal we struck back in 2002, and the commitment we made to the 
producers of this country and to the consumers of this country, has now 
been derailed not once but twice. Literally, it is death by a thousand 
cuts to the producers across this country who believe the Congress had 
taken their side and made a commitment to implement this legislation.
  My colleague from Texas--again, whose views on this I certainly 
respect--suggests we just have a voluntary system. The people who are 
opposed to doing this mandatory country-of-origin labeling, how do you 
expect them to come out and voluntarily say, we are going to do it. 
They are the very folks who are fighting, resisting, opposing, trying 
to delay and ultimately kill the country-of-origin labeling provision 
that was a part of the 2002 farm bill that ought to be the law of the 
land today.
  Everything that we have in this country has a label on it. The tie I 
am wearing this evening says ``Made in China.'' The glasses, as I get 
older, I need for reading purposes, say ``Made in China.'' Even the 
holder for the glasses has a labeling on it. The pen I hold in my hand 
says ``Made in Japan.'' Literally everything we purchase in this 
country has a label. We know where things come from, where they 
originate. In the last farm bill, we even implemented for fish, for 
fruit and vegetables. Yet we do not want to know where the meat comes 
from that the consumers of this country consume on a daily basis? Does 
anybody understand or recognize the inconsistency in that argument?
  It will not be very far from here that producers in this country will 
be forced to implement an animal ID system, and somehow we cannot 
implement a country-of-origin labeling system. Yet we are going to ask 
producers to trace the origin of those animals as a food safety 
precaution.
  I argue, again, that country-of-origin labeling is an opportunity for 
our producers to differentiate their product from those products raised 
elsewhere in the world. We have the highest quality, and our producers 
are proud of what they raise in this country. They want

[[Page S12228]]

to be able to differentiate it, but they are going to be required in 
the not-too-distant future, as a food safety measure, to implement an 
animal ID. We have a number of pilot programs underway across the 
country today. When one of those is adopted as some sort of a national 
standard, producers will be expected to trace the origin of those 
animals. The only question is, Who is going to pay for it?
  It is a slap in the face to this Nation's livestock producers and 
consumers. This recent delay is unacceptable. It is unwarranted. Who 
loses? The livestock producers who grow and raise quality products in 
this country, who want an opportunity to market and differentiate their 
products, and ultimately, the consumers of this country who have a 
right to know where the meats they purchase, day in and day out for 
consumption by themselves and their families, comes from. Special 
interests have won out this day over the will of our producers, our 
consumers, and the elected representatives in the Senate. That is a sad 
day.
  I will oppose this Agriculture appropriations conference report for 
that reason.
  I yield back my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate with 
interest. There are a few things perhaps to get on the record so we 
have it clear if someone wishes to go back in historic fashion and look 
at all this and say what really happened. I would like to make a few 
comments to that extent with respect to country-of-origin labeling.
  Conferences are for the purpose of resolving differences. The Senate 
had no statement at all with respect to country-of-origin labeling, so 
the Senate bill would have allowed the law to go forward in the way 
that many of the speakers here tonight have asked. The House bill would 
have killed it--not delayed it, killed it. The House voted 
overwhelmingly to eliminate country-of-origin labeling.
  We had to come up with a compromise. We could either have the Senate 
position--that it goes forward--we could have the House position--that 
it dies--or we could have something in between. In the spirit of most 
conferences, we came up with something in between.
  We have not killed the program in this conference report. We have 
delayed the implementation. So the Senate did not get what it wanted, 
which was full speed ahead. The House did not get what it wanted, which 
was to kill the program. We have a compromise.
  I think we should understand that so those who say, We caved in to 
the House, the House did it to us, without any consultation or 
conference with the Senate--well, understand that is not true. We 
arrived at a compromise between two very different positions. It does 
not satisfy the people in the Senate, and it probably does not satisfy 
the people in the House.
  Now, I will say from a personal point of view, I am getting tired of 
this debate. It came up when I became chairman of the subcommittee the 
first time. We have had to deal with it several times now. I think this 
is an issue that should be resolved in the authorizing committee. I 
think the authorizers should come to the conclusion it is a good idea 
and we should go ahead with it or they should come to the conclusion we 
made a mistake in the farm bill and we should kill it. They should not 
ask us in the appropriations process to make the decision that the 
authorizers need to make.
  The point has been made here that the date we set on this, with this 
compromise between the House and the Senate, carries to a point beyond 
the expiration of the current farm bill. That is true. That means the 
authorizers will have an opportunity, before we visit this issue again 
on the Appropriations Committee, to make their decision. The 
authorizers will have an opportunity to either re-endorse the idea or 
to kill it.
  So I say to those who feel so strongly on both sides: Talk to the 
authorizers when it comes up in the farm bill and make the decision--do 
we really want to go ahead with this or do we really want to kill it?--
and not ask those of us in the appropriations conference to have to 
deal with it. Get it off our plate and put it in the place where it 
belongs.
  I make one other comment. As I have looked at the issue, I find 
myself on the side of those who think it is a mistake. I have no 
pressure from consumers who want a label on meat that says where it 
comes from. I do not think they would pay that much attention to it. 
The history of country-of-origin labeling for virtually every other 
product is that consumers are mildly interested but that it does not 
significantly affect their purchasing.
  If someone really believes this would make meat more attractive to 
customers, he or she has the opportunity to put that label on right 
now. A voluntary program would make it available everywhere. But if 
someone wants to promote Iowa beef, they have the opportunity right now 
as a marketing device to say, This is Iowa beef, without having to go 
through all of the regulatory requirements that are connected with this 
law.
  So once again, this is an issue that the authorizers should look at. 
This is an issue that those of us who have been forced to deal with it 
are tired of. We hope this is the last time we will have to deal with 
it in an appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me from 
the USDA Acting General Counsel regarding sections 794 and 798 of the 
fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                Office of the General Counsel,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 2005.
     Hon. Robert F. Bennett,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and 
         Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This will respond to the inquiry made 
     today by members of your staff for the interpretation of the 
     Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding sections 794 and 
     798 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 
     (Act), as that measure was approved by Senate and House 
     conferees on October 26, 2005.
       If enacted, section 794 would provide that, effective 120 
     days after the date of enactment, no funds made available by 
     the Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel to inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal 
     Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), 21 U.S.C. Sec. 603, or under 
     guidelines issued by USDA under section 903 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act), 7 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1901 note. If enacted, section 794 would prohibit 
     the use of appropriated funds to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of USDA employees to perform inspections of horses 
     under either section 3 of the FMIA or the guidelines issued 
     under section 903 of the FAIR Act.
       If enacted, section 798 would (1) amend the FMIA by 
     removing the list of species, i.e., ``cattle, sheep, swine, 
     goats, horses, mules, and other equines'' at every place 
     where it presently occurs in the FMIA and replace such list 
     with the term ``amenable species''; (2) provide that the term 
     ``amenable species'' means those species subject to the 
     provisions of the FMIA on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Act, as well as ``any additional species of 
     livestock that the Secretary considers appropriate''; and (3) 
     make similar amendments to section 19 of the FMIA regarding 
     the marking and labeling of carcasses of horses, mules, and 
     other equines and products thereof. Section 798 would become 
     effective on the day after the effective date of section 794.
       Having reviewed these sections, it is our opinion that 
     section 798 does not nullify or supersede section 794 and 
     that, if both sections are enacted as written, barring 
     further amendment the prohibitions effected by section 794 
     would become effective 120 days after the date of enactment 
     of the Act.
       Please let us know if you have any further questions 
     regarding this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                              James Michael Kelly,
                                           Acting General Counsel.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________