[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 144 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12287-S12291]
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--Resumed

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while I recognize there are good things in 
this bill, today I will be voting against the Agriculture 
appropriations conference report for two primary reasons. One, it 
delays the implementation of the country- of-origin labeling for beef 
and other foods. U.S. consumers deserve to know where their food is 
grown and processed, and domestic producers deserve the opportunity to 
differentiate their products from foreign imports. While mandatory 
country-of-origin food labeling passed as part of the 2002 farm law, 
its implementation continues to be delayed and this bill would delay it 
an additional 2 years.
  My other primary concern is that the bill cuts funding for many 
important conservation programs, such as the Conservation Security 
Program. Since the farm bill was enacted in 2002, the USDA conservation 
programs have taken hits year after year. They have been used 
repeatedly as a source of 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.
  I appreciate the hard work of the chairman and the ranking member, 
but what came back from the House is not good for our Nation's farmers, 
it is not good for consumers, and it is not good for conservation. I 
will, therefore, be voting against it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
conference report to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2006. Unfortunately, I cannot support final passage of this 
bill.
  The conference agreement to H.R. 2744 appropriates about $100.9 
billion in spending, an amount that is approximately $848 million over 
the administration's request, $258 million more than the Senate-
approved bill and $660 million more than the House-passed bill. As is 
the case with many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, 
this bill and its accompanying report contain earmarks and pork 
projects which have not been authorized or requested.
  I believe that some Federal involvement is necessary to assist low-
income families under the Food Stamp Program and that we ensure that 
our farmers stay out of the red. And to this end, many of the programs 
under the Agriculture Department are worthwhile and I support their 
funding. I know that many of my colleagues have spoken before the 
Senate about the economic struggles of America's farmers, but as 
Congress looks ahead towards legislating a new farm bill in the near 
future, we once again conform to the practice of diverting taxpayer 
dollars into an array of special interest pork projects.
  Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill: 
$350,000 for a report on the economic development of the sheep industry 
in the United States; $1,250,000 for the National Sheep Industry 
Improvement Center; $210,000 to the Little Red River Irrigation 
project, Arkansas; $1,800,000 for the Muskingam River Watershed, 
Mohican River, Jerome and Muddy Fork obstruction removal projects, 
Ohio; $1,000,000 for a flood prevention project

[[Page S12288]]

in Kane County, Illinois; $200,000 for a grant to administer a private 
lands wildlife management program in Alaska; $1,000,000 for a grant to 
the Ohio Livestock Expo Center in Springfield, OH; $2,250,000 for a 
grant to the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives for pilot Wisconsin-
Minnesota health care cooperative purchasing alliance; $200,000 for a 
grant to the Utah State University for a farming and dairy training 
initiative; and $500,000 for a grant to the Nueces County, Texas 
Regional Fairground.

  It is a violation of Senate rules to legislate on an appropriations 
bill, and this fact is far too often overlooked. Authorizing policy is 
a function reserved for the authorizing committees, not the 
appropriations committee. As is done far too frequently, this 
appropriations bill includes a variety of policy changes. Examples 
include:
  The conference agreement authorizes the purchase of land by the 
Agriculture Research Service in Florence, SC.
  The conference agreement authorizes the lease of 40 acres of Federal 
ARS land to the Colorado State University system.
  The conference agreement authorizes the ARS to convey 19 acres of 
Federal land to Oktibbeha County, MS.
  The conference agreement allows for the granting of easements at the 
Beltsville, MD, Agricultural Research Center.
  The conference agreement amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 
regarding Federal loans.
  The conference agreement amends the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  The conference agreement amends the Organic Food Production Act of 
1990.
  The conference agreement amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
  The statement of managers that accompanies this conference report 
also includes hundreds of earmarks and questionable projects. Here are 
some examples: $300,000 for beaver management in North Carolina; 
$625,000 for game bird predation work with the University of Georgia; 
$50,000 for control of feral hogs in Missouri; $50,000 for animal 
tracking projects in the State of Washington; $380,000 to continue 
control measures for minimizing blackbird damage to sunflowers in North 
Dakota and South Dakota; $196,000 for geese control in the State of New 
York; $75,000 for research into peanut production, Dawson, GA; $75,000 
for research into seafood waste, Fairbanks, AK; and $250,000 for turf 
grass research, Beaver, WV.
  Despite high gas prices, despite a swelling budget 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 erode the integrity of the appropriations process 
and, by extension, our responsibility to the taxpayers. We can do 
better for our farmers and the American people.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I voted to reject the conference 
committee's report on the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations 
bill. There is much about this bill that I support. It funds important 
research in North Dakota and across the country that will greatly 
benefit American agriculture.
  I voted against the conference report because of how it treats an 
important issue called country-of-origin labeling. The 2002 farm bill 
required that fruits, vegetables, seafood, and meat sold in grocery 
stores and supermarkets be labeled with its country of origin. This is 
a consumer-friendly, farmer-friendly, rancher-friendly law, and I 
strongly supported it. After all, if we can look at a label on our T-
shirt and know where it came from, we should be able to do the same 
with the T-bone steak on our dinner plate.
  Country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, was supposed to begin in 
September 2004. If we had followed the law we passed in the farm bill, 
American consumers would today be able to know where their food comes 
from, and our farmers and ranchers would be reaping the benefits. 
Unfortunately, 2 years ago, opponents of this commonsense law hid a 
provision in a massive spending bill that delayed the start date for 
COOL until 2006.
  COOL is the law of the land. The Senate has voted overwhelmingly in 
favor of it. It should have gone into effect years ago. So I was 
outraged to learn there was another 2-year delay of COOL in this year's 
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  I knew some opponents of COOL wanted to delay this important program. 
But I expected that when the conference committee met to write a final 
version of the Agriculture appropriations bill, we would get a chance 
to debate this issue and vote on it, in public. Instead, a handful of 
Republican Senators and Representatives went behind closed doors and 
decided on their own to delay the program for an additional 2 years.
  That is an outrage. I voted no today because I think we should send 
this bill back to the conference committee and force the conference 
committee to vote on this issue.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I discuss the Agricultural 
Appropriations conference report, which recently passed the Senate. 
Though I was not pleased with all aspects of the final report, I voted 
in favor of this bill because I support New York farmers and consumers.
  I am proud to support the increases made to the Food Stamp Program, 
which is vital to feeding New York families and children.
  The Food Stamp Program plays a critical role in fighting hunger and 
ameliorating poverty in both our urban and rural communities. This 
program provides critical resources to millions of low-income families 
with children, seniors and individuals with disabilities.
  In addition, hundreds of thousands of displaced evacuees are 
currently in need of critical food assistance due to Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita. As the Nation works to recover and rebuild from these 
devastating natural disasters, the widespread need for increased 
assistance demands that Federal Government food relief efforts be 
expanded, not cut.
  I also welcomed increased funding to child nutrition programs, though 
I was upset to see that New York State was not included in the USDA's 
Fruit and Vegetable Program this year. I will continue to work with my 
Senate colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to ensure that New York 
is added next year. New York children deserve to have access to fresh 
produce in their lunch lines and in their schools.
  These positive aspects of the bill won my support for the bill as a 
whole. However, the bill has several important flaws that I must make 
note of. I am dismayed by the decision to cut funds to the Conservation 
Security Program, CSP, which provides voluntary incentives for farmers 
and ranchers to participate in efforts to preserve and enhance their 
farmland, their natural resources and the environment.
  Five watersheds in New York State are currently eligible for CSP sign 
up in FY 2005--Ausable, Northern and Southern Long Island, Buffalo and 
Niagara--and about 2,860 farms and over 436,000 acres are enrolled. Two 
additional New York State watersheds have been proposed to be added to 
CSP for FY 2006--East Branch Delaware and Oak Orchard--which would add 
an estimated 1,800 new farms and almost 390,000 acres to the program. 
Due to the drastic nature of the cuts to the Conservation Security 
Program, these contracts to New York State farmers are in jeopardy.
  I am also extremely disappointed by several of the provisions that 
were included in the conference report, particularly the decision to 
once again delay mandatory country-of-origin labeling. This provision 
was inserted behind closed doors and does not serve the interests of 
producers and consumers in my state of New York.
  The 2002 farm bill required that the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
write rules and implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling, COOL, 
of meat products, seafood, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, and 
peanuts by September 2004.
  My producers want mandatory COOL because it will give them a 
competitive advantage over foreign goods, particularly for the fresh 
market specialty crops that New York produces. It is also good for 
consumers, who will be able to make an informed choice and buy food 
produced closer to home. In addition, mandatory COOL will enhance food 
safety through increased traceability of our food products and will 
better protect animal and human health.

[[Page S12289]]

  Despite practical suggestions from small farmers and ranchers for 
streamlining the country-of-origin labeling process, I am disheartened 
to see that the decision has instead been made by agribusiness, which 
doesn't want consumers to know where food comes from.
  While I voted for this bill because I feel that it is imperative to 
keep agriculture and nutrition programs moving forward, I hope to 
continue to work with my Senate colleagues to address some of the 
shortcomings in the future.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr President, the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture 
appropriations conference report was written under some very difficult 
spending constraints compared to the needs of U.S. agriculture. Because 
the bill contains many positive elements for North Dakota agriculture, 
I intend to vote for its passage. However, I am deeply concerned that 
the appropriators have again adopted a delay in the implementation of 
the mandatory country-of-origin labeling for U.S. agricultural 
products. This provision is broadly supported by U.S. farmers and 
livestock producers who wish to be able to differentiate their products 
in the marketplace. It is also supported by our consumers who desire to 
know where their food is produced. It is unfortunate the conference 
failed to represent those interests.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 
2006 Agriculture appropriations bill. I want to thank Chairman Bennett 
and Ranking Member Kohl for their long, hard work on this important 
bill. In the current fiscal environment, it is extremely difficult to 
put together an Agriculture appropriations bill that meets the needs of 
rural communities across the U.S., and I believe that Senators Bennett 
and Kohl have done an admirable job.
  I am very pleased that two of my amendments that were adopted during 
Senate consideration of this bill were included in the final conference 
report--specifically, my first amendment will result in a thorough 
review of the impact the increased cost of gas, natural gas, and diesel 
is having on farmers, ranchers, and rural communities; and my second 
amendment will help to address ongoing bark beetle infestation 
problems.
  In addition, I am pleased that Colorado State University will receive 
funding for several important agricultural research programs such as 
infectious disease research, Russian wheat aphid research, and beef 
cattle genetics research.
  Unfortunately, I am still concerned about the rural communities this 
conference report is primarily designed to assist. I am concerned that 
we are not doing everything we can on behalf of those farmers, ranchers 
and agri-businesses that continue to play a vital role in our Nation's 
rural communities. We are not making the necessary investments to keep 
our young people in these communities, and we are not making the 
necessary investments in research and development that will allow those 
communities to compete economically.
  I am also concerned that this bill includes yet another delay for 
country-of-origin labeling. I believe this is a commonsense provision 
that will provide American consumers with information about where their 
food is coming from--information they need and deserve. Common sense 
dictates that if we can label where our shirts and socks are made, we 
can surely label where our meat and other kinds of food come from. I 
was disappointed to see this provision in the conference report, one 
that I believe will prevent our consumers from receiving the 
information they need to make an informed choice--the choice to buy 
American meat.
  We can do more. Here is what I am hearing from my State: During 
harvest, agricultural producers are some of the largest fuel consumers 
in the U.S., and producers are facing enormous fuel costs. In Grand 
Junction, CO, diesel prices are over $3.00.
  I have heard from one Colorado farmer in Kit Carson County who has 
estimated that, in order to harvest this year, he will need an 
additional $46,000 to cover fuel costs alone.
  I have also heard from a farmer in northeastern Colorado who, in 
order to cover the increasing price of fuel, has applied for additional 
loans at his bank--only to be turned down because he is already 
overextended with existing loans.
  That is why I am so pleased this bill now includes my amendment to 
require the Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Secretary of 
Energy to produce a comprehensive report on the impact of high gas 
prices on our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities across the 
country. That data is the first step toward a comprehensive solution 
that will help these communities address these terrible prices.
  When you consider that these increasing fuel costs come on top of 
both natural disasters and an overall budget picture that has resulted 
in $3 billion worth of cuts to important agricultural programs, it is 
painfully clear that we must do more to help our producers. I believe 
we must cooperate to provide our rural residents with increased rural 
development and sustainable agricultural opportunities as well as 
reasonable commodity supports and eligibility guidelines to ensure that 
Federal supports go to the family farmers who are the intended 
beneficiaries.
  Our family farmers, ranchers, and rural business people deserve fair 
farm, rural development, and conservation programs. They also deserve a 
safe food supply and other policies that help create more successful 
communities. I will support this bill, which is a step in the right 
direction. However, I do so with the recognition that it is not the 
whole answer, and that we must continue to fight--fight for the 
important investments that will assure our rural communities that we 
have not forgotten them.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2744.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have not.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in September I was pleased to support 
the Senate version of H.R. 2744, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations 
bill providing funding for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug 
Administration, and related agencies. I want to thank Senators Bennett 
and Kohl for their hard work in crafting that legislation. While I may 
not have supported every provision, on balance, the Senate bill 
provided important funding to support our Nation's farmers, rural 
communities, and conservation programs and to provide nutritious food 
for seniors, children, and those in need. While I still support many of 
the provisions that remained in the conference report, there were 
significant changes and new provisions added that prevent me from 
supporting the final conference report.
  After years of delay, I was encouraged that the Senate bill included 
funds to implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling, COOL, for 
meat, vegetables, and fruits. Unfortunately the conference report 
delays COOL for another 2 years, which is unacceptable for a provision 
that was part of the 2002 farm bill. Country-of-origin labeling is 
vitally important to enable our farmers to show their pride in the 
quality of their products, from ginseng to cheese to cranberries. 
Wisconsin farmers are proud of their work, and many consumers want to 
support American products--with country-of-origin labeling, both 
farmers and consumers benefit.
  The strength of the organic certification and labeling program 
through USDA has been the ability of organic consumers, farmers, 
processors, and retailers to work together to create a seal that 
everyone has confidence in. The Harvey court decision challenged some 
of the procedures in place for organic farming and food processing. 
This situation should have caused the organic community to again come 
together, openly discuss the issues, and more than likely propose 
consensus changes to the law to both ensure the reputation of the 
organic label and allow for the continued record growth of the organic 
market. The Senate had included an amendment to require the USDA to 
report on the effects of the Harvey decision as part of this open 
process.

[[Page S12290]]

  Unfortunately, some powerful corporate interests who see organic 
foods simply through the lens of potential profit were able to have 
language inserted in conference. While some of the inserted changes 
might ultimately have been adopted after open discussions with 
interested parties, back-room deals in the dead of night are not the 
way to go and have the potential for undermining confidence in the 
entire organic program.
  This closed-door process extended to other provisions that were 
changed in conference to the detriment of the final report, including 
reductions in conservation funding and the removal of a provision 
proposed by Senator Harkin that would have prevented the privatization 
of food stamp offices.
  I am also disappointed that there are not stronger protections 
against the politicization of decisions made by the Food and Drug 
Administration. There is no room for politics in science, yet the FDA 
has demonstrated an alarming indifference to scientific integrity in 
its unprecedented decision preventing emergency contraception, or Plan 
B, from being offered over the counter. I strongly believe women should 
have access to all available contraceptive methods so that they can 
make choices regarding their personal health. I have supported 
scientific integrity in the past, and I must express my displeasure 
that stronger language was not included in the final conference report 
to prevent the FDA from allowing politics to affect its decision 
making.
  By highlighting the problems with the conference report's process and 
policy I don't mean to suggest that nothing good remains from the 
Senate bill. The conference report still rejects a number of 
administration proposals to reduce or eliminate important programs such 
as funds for research at our land-grant colleges and universities, 
conservation partnerships through resource conservation and development 
councils, and funds to combat Johne's disease in our dairy industry. I 
was also heartened that the conferees included critical funds to 
address chronic wasting disease, and an amendment I proposed with 
Senator Allard to speed USDA's development of uniform regulations 
governing captive deer and elk. But, on balance, I simply cannot 
support the detrimental changes made in conference to the Senate bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Agriculture appropriations conference report.
  I would particularly like to thank the chairman and ranking member of 
the Subcommittee, Senators Bennett and Kohl, for including $7 million 
in the bill for specialty crop funding.
  Americans tend to forget that California is the largest agricultural 
producing State in the Nation. Of the top 10 agricultural producing 
counties nationwide, 8 are located in California. We export more crops 
than any other State, and I am proud to say that 97 percent of our 
farms are family owned.
  As a result, I supported the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act, 
legislation to boost the marketing of highly nutritious fruits, 
vegetables and other specialty crops to American consumers and 
international markets. The legislation provided, for the first time, a 
dedicated source of funding to promote the marketing of specialty crop 
products.
  Specialty crops are fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, 
and nursery crops, including floriculture. Farms in the Golden State 
produce more than half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts from 
just 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. While California accounts for 
about 13 percent of national cash receipts from agriculture, it 
receives only about 3 percent of direct government payments to 
agriculture. These funds, while open to all 50 States, will help 
California specialty crop farmers.
  As the globalization of markets continues, it is becoming 
increasingly difficult for United States producers to compete against 
heavily subsidized foreign producers in both the domestic and foreign 
markets. United States specialty crop producers also continue to face 
serious tariff and nontariff trade barriers in many export markets. The 
funding for specialty crops will promote the marketing of specialty 
crops and improve access to foreign markets and competitiveness.
  I am extremely pleased that we were able to include $7 million for 
crops that are so vital to our Nation's food supply.
  In addition, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member 
for including other projects that will benefit California.
  They include: $1.35 million for the California County Pest Detection 
Augmentation Program. These funds will help California counties 
increase high-risk pest exclusion inspection activities of new 
shipments of plants, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and animals. Pest 
exclusion is critical to a successful agricultural industry because it 
is more effective and less costly to prevent the introduction and 
establishment of potentially harmful exotic pests from the local 
environment than it is to eliminate them;
  $24.25 million for the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter/Pierce's Disease 
Control Program. The glassy-winged sharpshooter is an invasive pest 
that spreads bacteria that kills grapes, almonds and tree fruits. This 
funding will be used to develop the resources to eliminate the spread 
of the disease;
  $200 million for the Market Access Program. This nationwide program 
provides funding to promote the export of American agricultural 
products;
  $1.929 million for Exotic Pest Disease Research at the University of 
California. The Exotic Pest and Disease Research Program funds research 
to combat a wide variety of exotic organisms that have invaded or could 
invade California. Recent successes in the program include determining 
the origin of avocado thrips found in Ventura and Orange counties--
causing an $8.7 million annual loss to growers--and identifying natural 
enemies to control the thrips and replace pesticides previously in use. 
A similar approach is being developed for the Avocado Lace Bug. In 
addition, the program has funded work on such organisms as Sudden Oak 
Death, red imported fire ant, and Mediterranean fruitfly;
  $20 million for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. The program 
provides nutritional information and supplements as well as healthcare 
referrals to low-income mothers and pregnant women. The Farmers Market 
Nutrition Program provides coupons to participants to use to buy 
produce from small farmers, and nutrition information is provided 
through the local Farmers Market Nutrition Program agency;
  $3.076 million for the Sudden Oak Death Control Program. Funding will 
be used to continue researching Sudden Oak Death Disease, which infects 
and destroys oak and tanoak trees;
  $401,000 for Ozone Air Quality Research by the San Joaquin Valleywide 
Air Pollution Study Agency. A multi-year, intensive air quality study 
is needed to meet the requirements of Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plans anticipated after 2008. This study would build 
upon the Central California Ozone Study and the California Regional Air 
Quality Study. These new studies will include an ozone filed study, 
data analysis, modeling performance evaluations, air quality and 
meteorological modeling improvements, and a retrospective look at 
previous State Implementation Plan modeling.
  This bill is extremely important to ensuring a safe and secure 
domestic food supply. I would like to again thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for all of their hard work on this bill.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Frist

[[Page S12291]]


     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Burns
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kyl
     McCain
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       
     Corzine
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________