[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.
____________________