[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 132 (Tuesday, December 5, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11127-S11159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:20
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of
H.R. 5384, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill. which had been reported
from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to strike all
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, $10,515,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$11,000 of this amount shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses, not otherwise provided
for, as determined by the Secretary.
Executive Operations
chief economist
For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including
economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
energy and new uses, and the functions of the World
Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), $11,226,000.
National Appeals Division
For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
$14,795,000.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, $8,479,000.
Homeland Security Staff
For necessary expenses of the Homeland Security Staff,
$954,000.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, $16,936,000.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, $11,667,000, of which $5,676,000 shall be available
until expended: Provided, That no funds made available by
this appropriation may be obligated for FAIR Act or Circular
A-76 activities until the Secretary has submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
report on the Department's contracting out policies,
including agency budgets for contracting out.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, $836,000.
Office of Civil Rights
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$22,650,000.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, $681,000.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
(including transfers of funds)
For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to
Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984
delegation of authority from the Administrator of General
Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C.
486, for programs and activities of the Department which are
included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions
needed for the Department and its agencies to consolidate
unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to
the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings
and facilities, and for related costs, $209,814,000, to
remain available until expended, of which $155,851,000 shall
be available for payments to the General Services
Administration for rent and the Department of Homeland
Security for building security: Provided, That amounts which
are made available for space rental and related costs for the
Department of Agriculture in this Act may be transferred
between such appropriations to cover the costs of additional,
new, or replacement space 15 days after notice thereof is
transmitted to the Appropriations Committees of both Houses
of Congress.
Hazardous Materials Management
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to
comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), $12,020,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to
the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be
transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in
meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on
Federal and non-Federal lands.
Departmental Administration
(including transfers of funds)
For Departmental Administration, $24,114,000, to provide
for necessary expenses for management support services to
offices of the Department and for general administration,
security, repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous
supplies and expenses not otherwise provided for and
necessary for the practical and efficient work of the
Department: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
reimbursed from applicable appropriations in this Act for
travel expenses incident to the holding of hearings as
required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out
the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving
intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive
branch, $3,830,000: Provided, That these funds may be
transferred to agencies of the Department of Agriculture
funded by this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level:
Provided further, That no funds made available by this
appropriation may be obligated after 30 days from the date of
enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary has notified the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on
the allocation of these funds by USDA agency: Provided
further, That no other funds appropriated to the Department
by this Act shall be available to the Department for support
of activities of congressional relations.
Office of Communications
For necessary expenses to carry out services relating to
the coordination of programs involving public affairs, for
the dissemination of agricultural information, and the
coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by
Congress in the Department, $9,695,000: Provided, That not to
exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' bulletins.
Office of the Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General, including employment pursuant to the Inspector
General Act of 1978, $82,493,000, including such sums as may
be necessary for contracting and other arrangements with
public agencies and private persons pursuant to section
6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and including
not to exceed $125,000 for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
under the direction of the Inspector General pursuant to
Public Law 95-452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.
Office of the General Counsel
For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $40,647,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic
Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
$605,000.
Economic Research Service
For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in
conducting economic research and analysis, $75,963,000.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and
service work, $148,719,000, of which up to $36,582,000 shall
be available until expended for the Census of Agriculture.
Agricultural Research Service
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research
Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration
relating to production, utilization, marketing, and
distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or
nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition,
preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information;
and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or
purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land
exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value
or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor
which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the
land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership,
[[Page S11128]]
$1,127,553,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall
be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft
and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only:
Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be
available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction,
alteration, and repair of buildings and improvements, but
unless otherwise provided, the cost of constructing any one
building shall not exceed $375,000, except for headhouses or
greenhouses which shall each be limited to $1,200,000, and
except for 10 buildings to be constructed or improved at a
cost not to exceed $750,000 each, and the cost of altering
any one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10
percent of the current replacement value of the building or
$375,000, whichever is greater: Provided further, That the
limitations on alterations contained in this Act shall not
apply to modernization or replacement of existing facilities
at Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting
easements at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center:
Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall not
apply to replacement of buildings needed to carry out the Act
of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That
the foregoing limitations shall not apply to the purchase of
land at Florence, South Carolina: Provided further, That
funds may be received from any State, other political
subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of
establishing or operating any research facility or research
project of the Agricultural Research Service, as authorized
by law: Provided further, That the Secretary, through the
Agricultural Research Service, or successor, is authorized to
lease approximately 40 acres of land at the Central Plains
Experiment Station, Nunn, Colorado, to the Board of Governors
of the Colorado State University System, for its Shortgrass
Steppe Biological Field Station, on such terms and conditions
as the Secretary deems in the public interest: Provided
further, That the Secretary understands that it is the intent
of the University to construct research and educational
buildings on the subject acreage and to conduct agricultural
research and educational activities in these buildings:
Provided further, That as consideration for a lease, the
Secretary may accept the benefits of mutual cooperative
research to be conducted by the Colorado State University and
the Government at the Shortgrass Steppe Biological Field
Station: Provided further, That the term of any lease shall
be for no more than 20 years, but a lease may be renewed at
the option of the Secretary on such terms and conditions as
the Secretary deems in the public interest: Provided further,
That the Agricultural Research Service may convey all rights
and title of the United States, to a parcel of land
comprising 19 acres, more or less, located in Section 2,
Township 18 North, Range 14 East in Oktibbeha County,
Mississippi, originally conveyed by the Board of Trustees of
the Institution of Higher Learning of the State of
Mississippi, and described in instruments recorded in Deed
Book 306 at pages 553-554, Deed Book 319 at page 219, and
Deed Book 33 at page 115, of the public land records of
Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, including facilities, and
fixed equipment, to the Mississippi State University,
Starkville, Mississippi, in their ``as is'' condition, when
vacated by the Agricultural Research Service: Provided
further, That hereafter none of the funds appropriated under
this heading shall be available to carry out research related
to the production, processing, or marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products.
Buildings and Facilities
For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement,
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural
research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not
otherwise provided, $83,400,000, to remain available until
expended.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Research and Education Activities
For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for
cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and
for other expenses, $678,089,000, as follows: to carry out
the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i),
$185,817,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research
(16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $23,318,000; for payments to
the 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University
and West Virginia State University (7 U.S.C. 3222),
$39,076,000, of which $1,507,496 shall be made available only
for the purpose of ensuring that each institution shall
receive no less than $1,000,000; for special grants for
agricultural research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $119,341,000; for
special grants for agricultural research on improved pest
control (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $14,650,000; for competitive
research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), $190,229,000; for the
support of animal health and disease programs (7 U.S.C.
3195), $5,006,000; for supplemental and alternative crops and
products (7 U.S.C. 3319d), $825,000; for grants for research
pursuant to the Critical Agricultural Materials Act (7 U.S.C.
178 et seq.), $1,091,000, to remain available until expended;
for the 1994 research grants program for 1994 institutions
pursuant to section 536 of Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301
note), $2,058,000, to remain available until expended; for
rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 3333), $990,000; for
higher education graduate fellowship grants (7 U.S.C.
3152(b)(6)), $3,701,000, to remain available until expended
(7 U.S.C. 2209b); for a veterinary medicine loan repayment
program pursuant to section 1415A of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), $750,000, to remain available
until expended; for higher education challenge grants (7
U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $5,423,000; for a higher education
multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)),
$988,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C.
2209b); for an education grants program for Hispanic-serving
Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241), $6,237,000; for noncompetitive
grants for the purpose of carrying out all provisions of 7
U.S.C. 3242 (section 759 of Public Law 106-78) to individual
eligible institutions or consortia of eligible institutions
in Alaska and in Hawaii, with funds awarded equally to each
of the States of Alaska and Hawaii, $3,218,000; for a
secondary agriculture education program and 2-year post-
secondary education (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)), $990,000; for
aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), $3,928,000; for
sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C.
5811), $12,276,000; for a program of capacity building grants
(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to receive funds
under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328),
including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State
University, $12,375,000, to remain available until expended
(7 U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to the 1994 Institutions
pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public Law 103-382,
$4,456,000; and for necessary expenses of Research and
Education Activities, $41,346,000, of which $2,723,000 for
the Research, Education, and Economics Information System and
$2,151,000 for the Electronic Grants Information System, are
to remain available until expended: Provided, That hereafter
none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products:
Provided further, That hereafter this paragraph shall not
apply to research on the medical, biotechnological, food, and
industrial uses of tobacco.
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note),
$11,880,000, to remain available until expended.
Extension Activities
For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern
Marianas, and American Samoa, $467,102,000, as follows:
payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever
Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said
Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for
retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension
agents, $286,622,000; payments for extension work at the 1994
Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)),
$3,402,000; payments for the nutrition and family education
program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act,
$63,538,000; payments for the pest management program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $9,860,000; payments for the farm
safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,517,000;
payments for New Technologies for Ag Extension under Section
3(d) of the Act, $1,985,000; payments to upgrade research,
extension, and teaching facilities at the 1890 land-grant
colleges, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia
State University, as authorized by section 1447 of Public Law
95-113 (7 U.S.C. 3222b), $16,609,000, to remain available
until expended; payments for youth-at-risk programs under
section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $7,651,000; for youth
farm safety education and certification extension grants, to
be awarded competitively under section 3(d) of the Act,
$440,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of the
Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et
seq.), $4,220,000; payments for federally-recognized Tribes
Extension Program under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act,
$1,976,000; payments for sustainable agriculture programs
under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,026,000; payments for rural
health and safety education as authorized by section 502(i)
of Public Law 92-419 (7 U.S.C. 2662(i)), $1,946,000; payments
for cooperative extension work by the colleges receiving the
benefits of the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328)
and Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University,
$35,205,000, of which $1,724,884 shall be made available only
for the purpose of ensuring that each institution shall
receive no less than $1,000,000; for grants to youth
organizations pursuant to section 7630 of title 7, United
States Code, $1,980,000; and for necessary expenses of
Extension Activities, $23,125,000.
Integrated Activities
For the integrated research, education, and extension
grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses,
$58,704,000, as follows: for competitive grants programs
authorized under section 406 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626),
$43,369,000, including $12,738,000 for the water quality
program, $14,699,000 for the food safety program, $4,125,000
for the regional pest management centers program, $4,419,000
for the Food Quality Protection Act risk mitigation program
for major food crop systems, $1,375,000 for the crops
affected by Food Quality Protection Act implementation,
$3,075,000 for the methyl bromide transition program, and
$1,948,000 for the organic transition program; for a
competitive international science and education grants
program authorized under section 1459A of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3292b), to remain available until expended,
$990,000; for grants programs authorized under section
2(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 89-106, as amended, $737,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2008 for the critical
issues program; and $1,321,000 for the regional rural
development centers program; $2,277,000 for asian soybean
rust; and $11,000,000 for the Food and Agriculture Defense
Initiative authorized under section 1484 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Act of 1977,
to remain available until September 30, 2008.
[[Page S11129]]
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 2279), $5,940,000, to remain available until expended.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to
administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the
Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration; $731,000.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and animal
diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and regulatory
activities; and to protect the environment, as authorized by
law, $900,423,000, of which $4,127,000 shall be available for
the control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal
diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the
extent necessary to meet emergency conditions; of which
$38,200,000 shall be used for the boll weevil eradication
program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for
active eradication zones; of which $33,107,000 shall be
available for a National Animal Identification program; of
which $56,730,000 shall be used to conduct a surveillance and
preparedness program for highly pathogenic avian influenza:
Provided, That no funds shall be used to formulate or
administer a brucellosis eradication program for the current
fiscal year that does not require minimum matching by the
States of at least 40 percent: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for the operation and
maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed
four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided
further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any
segment of the agricultural production industry of this
country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations
or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the
Department such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be
available only in such emergencies for the arrest and
eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of
animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance
with sections 10411 and 10417 of the Animal Health Protection
Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and sections 431 and 442 of the
Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 and 7772), and any
unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency
purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with
such transferred amounts: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law
(7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased
buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the
cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year
shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value
of the building.
In fiscal year 2007, the agency is authorized to collect
fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other
political subdivisions, domestic and international
organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided
that such fees are structured such that any entity's
liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical
assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the
agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to
remain available until expended, without further
appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or
services.
Buildings and Facilities
For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $5,946,000, to remain available until expended.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services
For necessary expenses to carry out services related to
consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution,
transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by
law, and for administration and coordination of payments to
States, $71,170,000, including funds for the wholesale market
development program for the design and development of
wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major
metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization
activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31
U.S.C. 9701).
limitation on administrative expenses
Not to exceed $62,211,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section 32)
(including transfers of funds)
Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity
program expenses as authorized therein, and other related
operating expenses, including not less than $10,000,000 for
replacement of a system to support commodity purchases,
except for: (1) transfers to the Department of Commerce as
authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 8, 1956;
(2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and (3) not
more than $16,425,000 for formulation and administration of
marketing agreements and orders pursuant to the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the Agricultural Act of
1961.
Payments to States and Possessions
For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and
departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing
activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $3,834,000, of which not less
than $2,500,000 shall be used to make a grant under this
heading.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of
the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures
used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the
standardization activities related to grain under the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, $38,737,000: Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7
U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses
Not to exceed $42,463,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and
weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities
require additional supervision and oversight, or other
uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded
by up to 10 percent with notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws
enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, $607,000.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act,
including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances
and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved
August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $865,905,000, of which no
less than $777,189,000 shall be available for Federal food
safety inspection; and in addition, $1,000,000 may be
credited to this account from fees collected for the cost of
laboratory accreditation as authorized by section 1327 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 138f): Provided, That no fewer than 63 full time
equivalent positions above the fiscal year 2002 level shall
be employed during fiscal year 2007 for purposes dedicated
solely to inspections and enforcement related to the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act: Provided further, That of the
amount available under this heading, notwithstanding section
704 of this Act $3,000,000, available until September 30,
2008, shall be obligated to maintain the Humane Animal
Tracking System as part of the Field Automation and
Information Management System: Provided further, That of the
total amount made available under this heading, no less than
$20,653,000 shall be obligated for regulatory and scientific
training: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration
and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of
altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not
exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the
building.
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to
administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service
Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management
Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $640,000.
Farm Service Agency
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs administered by the Farm
Service Agency, $1,151,779,000: Provided, That the Secretary
is authorized to use the services, facilities, and
authorities (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to make program payments for all programs
administered by the Agency: Provided further, That other
funds made available to the Agency for authorized activities
may be advanced to and merged with this account.
State Mediation Grants
For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106),
$4,208,000.
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
For necessary expenses to carry out wellhead or groundwater
protection activities under section 1240O of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2), $3,713,000, to
remain available until expended.
Dairy Indemnity Program
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
under a dairy indemnity program, $100,000, to remain
available
[[Page S11130]]
until expended: Provided, That such program is carried out by
the Secretary in the same manner as the dairy indemnity
program described in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387, 114 Stat. 1549A-12).
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed farm ownership (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and
operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) loans, Indian tribe land
acquisition loans (25 U.S.C. 488), and boll weevil loans (7
U.S.C. 1989), to be available from funds in the Agricultural
Credit Insurance Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans,
$1,422,750,000, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $222,750,000 shall be for
direct loans; operating loans, $1,941,360,000, of which
$1,025,610,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans,
$272,250,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans and
$643,500,000 shall be for direct loans; Indian tribe land
acquisition loans, $3,960,000; and for boll weevil
eradication program loans, $59,400,000: Provided, That the
Secretary shall deem the pink bollworm to be a boll weevil
for the purpose of boll weevil eradication program loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $16,293,000, of which $6,960,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans, and $9,333,000 shall be for direct loans;
operating loans, $127,973,000, of which $25,332,000 shall be
for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $27,416,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans, and $75,225,000 shall be for
direct loans; and Indian tribe land acquisition loans,
$838,000; and boll weevil eradication program loans,
$1,129,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $319,657,000, of
which $311,737,000 shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Program Account for farm ownership and operating
direct loans and guaranteed loans may be transferred among
these programs: Provided, That the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified at
least 15 days in advance of any transfer: Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to collect from the lender an annual
fee on unsubsidized guaranteed operating loans, a guarantee
fee of more than one percent of the principal obligation of
guaranteed unsubsidized operating or ownership loans, or a
guarantee fee on subsidized guaranteed operating loans
administered by the Farm Service Agency.
Risk Management Agency
For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by
section 226A of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6933), $78,477,000: Provided, That the
Secretary of Agriculture may use an amount not to exceed
$3,600,000 of unobligated funds made available under section
522(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(e))
for program integrity purposes, including the data mining
project: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).
CORPORATIONS
The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds
and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set
forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such
corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
reimbursement for net realized losses
For the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary
to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net
realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed,
pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15
U.S.C. 713a-11): Provided, That of the funds available to the
Commodity Credit Corporation under section 11 of the
Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C 714i) for
the conduct of its business with the Foreign Agricultural
Service, up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to and used by
the Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource
management activities of the Foreign Agricultural Service
that are not related to Commodity Credit Corporation
business.
hazardous waste management
(limitation on expenses)
For the current fiscal year, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site
investigation and cleanup expenses, and operations and
maintenance expenses to comply with the requirement of
section 107(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(g)), and
section 6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 6961).
FARM STORAGE FACILITY LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the Farm
Storage and Sugar Storage Facility Loan Programs, $4,560,000,
to be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses.
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
$752,000.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Operations
For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials program
by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to
exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C.
428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of
permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and
maintenance of aircraft, $835,331,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2008, of which not less than $10,698,000
is for snow survey and water forecasting, and not less than
$10,678,000 is for operation and establishment of the plant
materials centers, and of which not less than $27,255,000
shall be for the grazing lands conservation initiative:
Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall be available
pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for construction and improvement of
buildings and public improvements at plant materials centers,
except that the cost of alterations and improvements to other
buildings and other public improvements shall not exceed
$250,000: Provided further, That when buildings or other
structures are erected on non-Federal land, that the right to
use such land is obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available
for technical assistance and related expenses to carry out
programs authorized by section 202(c) of title II of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (43 U.S.C.
1592(c)): Provided further, That qualified local engineers
may be temporarily employed at per diem rates to perform the
technical planning work of the Service.
Watershed Surveys and Planning
For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation,
and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and
for small watershed investigations and planning, in
accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), $6,022,000.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009), the
provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f),
and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the
activities of the Department, $62,070,000, to remain
available until expended; of which up to $10,000,000 may be
available for the watersheds authorized under the Flood
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a): Provided,
That not to exceed $30,000,000 of this appropriation shall be
available for technical assistance: Provided further, That
not to exceed $1,000,000 of this appropriation is available
to carry out the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (Public Law 93-205), including cooperative efforts as
contemplated by that Act to relocate endangered or threatened
species to other suitable habitats as may be necessary to
expedite project construction.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of
structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating
to the activities of the Department, $31,245,000, to remain
available until expended.
Resource Conservation and Development
For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of sections 31 and
32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011;
76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f);
and subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of
1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $50,787,000, to remain available
until expended.
Healthy Forests Reserve Program
For necessary expenses to carry out the Healthy Forests
Reserve Program authorized under title V of Public Law 108-
148 (16 U.S.C. 6571-6578), $5,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs
under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing
[[Page S11131]]
Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the
Rural Utilities Service, $640,000.
Rural Community Advancement Program
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and
1932, except for sections 381E-H and 381N of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act, $714,958,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $101,764,000 shall be for
rural community programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of
such Act; of which $524,960,000 shall be for the rural
utilities programs described in sections 381E(d)(2),
306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act, of which not to exceed
$500,000 shall be available for the rural utilities program
described in section 306(a)(2)(B) of such Act, and of which
not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the rural
utilities program described in section 306E of such Act; and
of which $88,234,000 shall be for the rural business and
cooperative development programs described in sections
381E(d)(3) and 310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That of the
total amount appropriated in this account, $26,000,000 shall
be for loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized
Native American Tribes, including grants for drinking water
and waste disposal systems pursuant to section 306C of such
Act, of which $5,000,000 shall be available for community
facilities grants to tribal colleges, as authorized by
section 306(a)(19) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, and of which $250,000 shall be available for
a grant to a qualified national organization to provide
technical assistance for rural transportation in order to
promote economic development: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated for rural community programs, $6,287,000
shall be available for a Rural Community Development
Initiative: Provided further, That such funds shall be used
solely to develop the capacity and ability of private,
nonprofit community-based housing and community development
organizations, low-income rural communities, and Federally
Recognized Native American Tribes to undertake projects to
improve housing, community facilities, community and economic
development projects in rural areas: Provided further, That
such funds shall be made available to qualified private,
nonprofit and public intermediary organizations proposing to
carry out a program of financial and technical assistance:
Provided further, That such intermediary organizations shall
provide matching funds from other sources, including Federal
funds for related activities, in an amount not less than
funds provided: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated for the rural business and cooperative
development programs, not to exceed $500,000 shall be made
available for a grant to a qualified national organization to
provide technical assistance for rural transportation in
order to promote economic development; $2,500,000 shall be
for grants to the Delta Regional Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq.) for any purpose under this heading, of which not more
than five percent may be used for administrative expenses,
including conferences: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated for rural utilities programs, not to exceed
$25,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal systems to
benefit the Colonias along the United States/Mexico border,
including grants pursuant to section 306C of such Act;
$25,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal systems for
rural and native villages in Alaska pursuant to section 306D
of such Act, with up to 2 percent available to administer the
program and/or improve interagency coordination may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for ``Rural
Development, Salaries and Expenses'', of which $100,000 shall
be provided to develop a regional system for centralized
billing, operation, and management of rural water and sewer
utilities through regional cooperatives, of which 25 percent
shall be provided for water and sewer projects in regional
hubs, and the State of Alaska shall provide a 25 percent cost
share, and grantees may use up to 5 percent of grant funds,
not to exceed $35,000 per community, for the completion of
comprehensive community safe water plans; not to exceed
$19,000,000 shall be for technical assistance grants for
rural water and waste systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14)
of such Act, unless the Secretary makes a determination of
extreme need, of which $5,600,000 shall be for Rural
Community Assistance Programs and not less than $850,000
shall be for a qualified national Native American
organization to provide technical assistance for rural water
systems for tribal communities; and not to exceed $13,750,000
shall be for contracting with qualified national
organizations for a circuit rider program to provide
technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed
$21,367,000 shall be available through June 30, 2007, for
authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of which $1,067,000
shall be for the rural community programs described in
section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which $12,000,000 shall be
for the rural utilities programs described in section
381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which $8,300,000 shall be for
the rural business and cooperative development programs
described in section 381E(d)(3) of such Act: Provided
further, That of the amount appropriated for rural community
programs, $21,000,000 shall be to provide grants for
facilities in rural communities with extreme unemployment and
severe economic depression (Public Law 106-387), with 5
percent for administration and capacity building in the State
rural development offices: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated, $26,000,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the ``Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Cost
Grants Account'' to provide grants authorized under section
19 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 918a):
Provided further, That any prior year balances for high cost
energy grants authorized by section 19 of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901(19)) shall be
transferred to and merged with the ``Rural Utilities Service,
High Energy Costs Grants Account''.
Rural Development Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs in the Rural Development
mission area, including activities with institutions
concerning the development and operation of agricultural
cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $176,522,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated under this section may be used for
advertising and promotional activities that support the Rural
Development mission area: Provided further, That not more
than $10,000 may be expended to provide modest nonmonetary
awards to non-USDA employees: Provided further, That any
balances available from prior years for the Rural Utilities
Service, Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service salaries and expenses accounts shall be
transferred to and merged with this appropriation.
Rural Housing Service
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing
insurance fund, as follows: $4,773,614,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $1,129,391,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which
$3,644,223,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
$34,652,000 for section 504 housing repair loans;
$100,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; $100,000,000 for
section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing loans; $5,000,000
for section 524 site loans; $11,482,000 for credit sales of
acquired property, of which up to $1,482,000 may be for
multi-family credit sales; and $4,980,000 for section 523
self-help housing land development loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502
loans, $155,919,000, of which $113,278,000 shall be for
direct loans, and of which $42,641,000, to remain available
until expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
section 504 housing repair loans, $10,240,000; repair,
rehabilitation, and new construction of section 515 rental
housing, $45,880,000; section 538 multi-family housing
guaranteed loans, $7,740,000; credit sales of acquired
property, $720,000; and section 523 self-help housing and
development loans, $123,000: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated in this paragraph, $2,500,000 shall be
available through June 30, 2007, for authorized empowerment
zones and enterprise communities and communities designated
by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area
Partnership Zones: Provided further, That any funds under
this paragraph initially allocated by the Secretary for
housing projects in the State of Alaska that are not
obligated by September 30, 2007, shall be carried over until
September 30, 2008, and made available for such housing
projects only in the State of Alaska: Provided further, That
any obligated balances for a demonstration program for the
preservation and revitalization of the section 515 multi-
family rental housing properties as authorized in Public Law
109-97 shall be transferred to and merged with the ``Rural
Housing Service, Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program
Account''.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $455,776,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses'', of which not less than $1,000,000 shall be made
available for the Secretary to contract with third parties to
acquire the necessary automation and technical services
needed to restructure section 515 mortgages.
Rental Assistance Program
For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or
agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $335,400,000, to
remain available through September 30, 2008; and, in
addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by
section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior
to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance
program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of
this amount, up to $5,900,000 shall be available for debt
forgiveness or payments for eligible households as authorized
by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to exceed $50,000
per project for advances to nonprofit organizations or public
agencies to cover direct costs (other than purchase price)
incurred in purchasing projects pursuant to section
502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That agreements
entered into or renewed during the current fiscal year shall
be funded for a one-year period: Provided further, That any
unexpended balances remaining at the end of such one-year
agreements may be transferred and used for the purposes of
any debt reduction; maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation of
any existing projects; preservation; and rental assistance
activities authorized under title V of the Act: Provided
further, That rental assistance that is recovered from
projects that are subject to prepayment shall be deobligated
and reallocated for vouchers and debt forgiveness or payments
consistent with the requirements of
[[Page S11132]]
this Act for purposes authorized under section 542 and
section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended:
Provided further, That up to $4,190,000 may be used for the
purpose of reimbursing funds used for rental assistance
agreements entered into or renewed pursuant to the authority
under section 521(a)(2) of the Act for emergency needs
related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Provided further,
That rental assistance provided under agreements entered into
prior to fiscal year 2007 for a section 514/516 project may
not be recaptured for use in another project until such
assistance has remained unused for a period of 12 consecutive
months, if such project has a waiting list of tenants seeking
such assistance or the project has rental assistance eligible
tenants who are not receiving such assistance: Provided
further, That such recaptured rental assistance shall, to the
extent practicable, be applied to another section 514/516
project.
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account
For the rural housing voucher program as authorized under
section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949, (without regard to
section 542(b)), for the cost to conduct a housing
demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the
preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects, and
for additional costs to conduct a demonstration program for
the preservation and revitalization of the section 515 multi-
family rental housing properties, $28,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be available
for rural housing vouchers to any low-income household
(including those not receiving rental assistance) residing in
a property financed with a section 515 loan which has been
prepaid after September 30, 2005: Provided further, That the
amount of such voucher shall be the difference between
comparable market rent for the section 515 unit and the
tenant paid rent for such unit: Provided further, That funds
made available for such vouchers, shall be subject to the
availability of annual appropriations: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
administer such vouchers with current regulations and
administrative guidance applicable to section 8 housing
vouchers administered by the Secretary of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (including the ability to pay
administrative costs related to delivery of the voucher
funds): Provided further, That if the Secretary determines
that the amount made available for vouchers in this or any
other Act is not needed for vouchers, the Secretary may use
such funds for the demonstration programs for the
preservation and revitalization of the section 515
multifamily rental housing properties described in this
paragraph: Provided further, That of the funds made available
under this heading, $3,000,000 shall be available for loans
to private non-profit organizations, or such non-profit
organizations' affiliate loan funds and State and local
housing finance agencies, to carry out a housing
demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the
preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects:
Provided further, That loans under such demonstration program
shall have an interest rate of not more than 1 percent direct
loan to the recipient: Provided further, That the Secretary
may defer the interest and principal payment to the Rural
Housing Service for up to 3 years and the term of such loans
shall not exceed 30 years: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, $15,000,000 shall be
available for a demonstration program for the preservation
and revitalization of the section 515 multi-family rental
housing properties to restructure existing section 515 loans,
as the Secretary deems appropriate, expressly for the
purposes of ensuring the project has sufficient resources to
preserve the project for the purpose of providing safe and
affordable housing for low-income residents including
reducing or eliminating interest; deferring loan payments,
subordinating, reducing or reamortizing loan debt; and other
financial assistance including advances and incentives
required by the Secretary: Provided further, That if the
Secretary determines that additional funds for vouchers
described in this paragraph are needed, funds for the
preservation and revitalization demonstration program may be
used for such vouchers: Provided further, That if Congress
enacts legislation to permanently authorize a section 515
multi-family rental housing loan restructuring program
similar to the demonstration program described herein, the
Secretary may use funds made available for the demonstration
program under this heading to carry out such legislation with
the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants
For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A)
of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $33,660,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through
June 30, 2007, for authorized empowerment zones and
enterprise communities and communities designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership
Zones.
Rural Housing Assistance Grants
For grants and contracts for very low-income housing
repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation
for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made
by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C.
1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $40,590,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30,
2007, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.
Farm Labor Program Account
For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $30,643,000, to remain
available until expended, for direct farm labor housing loans
and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)),
$33,925,000.
For the cost of direct loans, $14,951,000, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which
$1,724,000 shall be available through June 30, 2007, for
Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which
$3,449,000 shall be available through June 30, 2007, for
Mississippi Delta Region counties (as determined in
accordance with Public Law 100-460): Provided, That such
costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be
as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, $887,000 shall be available through June 30,
2007, for the cost of direct loans for authorized empowerment
zones and enterprise communities and communities designated
by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area
Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan programs, $4,950,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development,
Salaries and Expenses''.
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account
(including rescission of funds)
For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized
under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, $34,652,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $7,568,000, to remain
available until expended.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments in the current fiscal year, as authorized by section
313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $78,514,000
shall not be obligated and $78,514,000 are rescinded.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants
For rural cooperative development grants authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $29,500,000, of which
$500,000 shall be for a cooperative research agreement with a
qualified academic institution to conduct research on the
national economic impact of all types of cooperatives; and of
which $2,500,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program:
Provided, That not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be for
cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary
focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers
and whose governing board and/or membership is comprised of
at least 75 percent minority; and of which $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended, shall be for value-added
agricultural product market development grants, as authorized
by section 6401 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).
Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Community Grants
For grants in connection with second and third rounds of
empowerment zones and enterprise communities, $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for designated rural
empowerment zones and rural enterprise communities, as
authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999 (Public Law 105-277): Provided, That of the funds
appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be made available to third
round empowerment zones, as authorized by the Community
Renewal Tax Relief Act (Public Law 106-554).
Renewable Energy Program
For the cost of a program of direct loans, loan guarantees,
and grants, under the same terms and conditions as authorized
by section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106), $25,000,000 for direct and
guaranteed renewable energy loans and grants: Provided, That
the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Rural Utilities Service
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be
made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans,
$99,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans,
$99,000,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act,
rural electric, $5,000,000,000; Treasury rate direct electric
loans, $990,000,000; guaranteed electric loans, $99,000,000;
guaranteed underwriting loans pursuant to section 313A,
$1,500,000,000; 5 percent rural telecommunications loans,
$143,513,000; cost of money rural telecommunications loans,
$419,760,000; and for loans made pursuant to section 306 of
that Act, rural telecommunications loans, $299,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by
sections 305 and 306 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936
(7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), as follows: cost of rural electric
[[Page S11133]]
loans, $3,703,000, and the cost of telecommunications loans,
$657,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest
rates may exceed 7 percent per year.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $39,600,000
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
For the principal amount of the broadband telecommunication
loans, $500,000,000.
For grants for telemedicine and distance learning services
in rural areas, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.,
$30,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That $5,000,000 shall be made available to convert analog to
digital operation those noncommercial educational television
broadcast stations that serve rural areas and are qualified
for Community Service Grants by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting under section 396(k) of the Communications Act
of 1934, including associated translators and repeaters,
regardless of the location of their main transmitter, studio-
to-transmitter links, and equipment to allow local control
over digital content and programming through the use of high-
definition broadcast, multi-casting and datacasting
technologies.
For the cost of broadband loans, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
901 et seq., $10,750,000, to remain available until September
30, 2008: Provided, That the interest rate for such loans
shall be the cost of borrowing to the Department of the
Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity: Provided
further, That the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for a grant program to finance broadband
transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning
and Telemedicine Program benefits authorized by 7 U.S.C.
950aaa.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and
Nutrition Service, $604,000.
Food and Nutrition Service
Child Nutrition Programs
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.),
except sections 17 and 21; $13,654,487,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2008, of which $7,923,414,000
is hereby appropriated and $5,731,073,000 shall be derived by
transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That of the funds
made available under this heading, $300,000,000 shall be
placed in reserve and used only in such amounts and at such
times as may become necessary to carry out program
operations: Provided further, That up to $5,335,000 shall be
available for independent verification of school food service
claims: Provided further, That of the funds made available
under this heading, $9,000,000, available until September 30,
2008, of which not to exceed 5 percent may be available for
Federal administrative expenses, shall be used to carry out
section 120 of Public Law 108-265 in an additional 9 States.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC)
For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$5,264,000,000, to remain available through September 30,
2008, of which such sums as are necessary to restore the
contingency reserve to $125,000,000 shall be placed in
reserve, to remain available until expended, to be allocated
as the Secretary deems necessary, notwithstanding section
17(i) of such Act, to support participation should cost or
participation exceed budget estimates: Provided, That amounts
over $125,000,000 in the contingency reserve shall be treated
as general WIC appropriated funds rather than contingency
reserve funds: Provided further, That of the total amount
available, the Secretary shall obligate not less than
$15,000,000 for a breastfeeding support initiative in
addition to the activities specified in section 17(h)(3)(A):
Provided further, That only the provisions of section
17(h)(10)(B)(i) and section 17(h)(10)(B)(ii) shall be
effective in 2007; including $14,000,000 for the purposes
specified in section 17(h)(10)(B)(i) and $20,000,000 for the
purposes specified in section 17(h)(10)(B)(ii): Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available to pay administrative expenses of WIC clinics
except those that have an announced policy of prohibiting
smoking within the space used to carry out the program:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this
account shall be available for the purchase of infant formula
except in accordance with the cost containment and
competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of
such Act: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
shall be available for activities that are not fully
reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or
agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.
Food Stamp Program
For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $37,865,231,000, of which
$3,000,000,000 to remain available through September 30,
2008, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts
and at such times as may become necessary to carry out
program operations: Provided, That funds provided herein
shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food
Stamp Act: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
subject to any work registration or workfare requirements as
may be required by law: Provided further, That funds made
available for Employment and Training under this heading
shall remain available until expended, as authorized by
section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further,
That funds made available under this heading may be used to
enter into contracts and employ staff to conduct studies,
evaluations, or to conduct activities related to food stamp
program integrity provided that such activities are
authorized by the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977,
any additional payment received under chapter 5 of title 37,
United States Code, by a member of the United States Armed
Forces deployed to a designated combat zone shall be excluded
from household income for the duration of the member's
deployment if the additional pay is the result of deployment
to or while serving in a combat zone, and it was not received
immediately prior to serving in the combat zone.
Commodity Assistance Program
For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and
the commodity supplemental food program, as authorized by
section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); the Emergency Food Assistance
Act of 1983; special assistance (in a form determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture) for the nuclear affected islands,
as authorized by section 103(f)(2) of the Compact of Free
Association Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188); and
the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by
section 17(m) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966,
$179,366,000, to remain available through September 30, 2008:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities
donated to the program: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective with
funds made available in fiscal year 2007 to support the
Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), as
authorized by section 4402 of Public Law 107-171, such funds
shall remain available through September 30, 2008: Provided
further, That hereafter no funds available for SFMNP shall be
used to pay State or local sales taxes on food purchased with
SFMNP coupons or checks: Provided further, That hereafter the
value of assistance provided by the SFMNP shall not be
considered income or resources for any purposes under any
Federal, State or local laws related to taxation, welfare and
public assistance programs: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under section 27(a) of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the Secretary may use up
to $10,000,000 for costs associated with the distribution of
commodities.
Nutrition Programs Administration
For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic
nutrition assistance programs funded under this Act,
$143,114,000.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities
abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and
integrate activities of the Department in connection with
foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $158,000
for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to
section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766),
$156,186,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances
of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures
made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private
organizations and institutions under agreements executed
pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance
programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs
of the United States Agency for International Development.
Public Law 480 Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program
Account
(including transfers of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the credit program
of title I, Public Law 83-480 and the Food for Progress Act
of 1985, $2,651,000, to be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Public Law 480 Title II Grants
For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, for commodities supplied in
connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said
Act, $1,225,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, $5,331,000; to cover common overhead expenses as
permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of which $4,985,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $346,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.
[[Page S11134]]
Mc Govern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program Grants
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $100,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Commodity Credit
Corporation is authorized to provide the services,
facilities, and authorities for the purpose of implementing
such section, subject to reimbursement from amounts provided
herein.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public
Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of
special purpose space in the District of Columbia or
elsewhere; for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; and notwithstanding
section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $1,941,646,000: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading, $320,600,000
shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized
by 21 U.S.C. 379h, shall be credited to this account and
remain available until expended, and shall not include any
fees pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(2) and (a)(3) assessed for
fiscal year 2008 but collected in fiscal year 2007;
$43,726,000 shall be derived from medical device user fees
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this
account and remain available until expended; and $11,604,000
shall be derived from animal drug user fees authorized by 21
U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this account and remain
available until expended: Provided further, That fees derived
from prescription drug, medical device, and animal drug
assessments received during fiscal year 2007, including any
such fees assessed prior to the current fiscal year but
credited during the current year, shall be subject to the
fiscal year 2007 limitation: Provided further, That none of
these funds shall be used to develop, establish, or operate
any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701:
Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated: (1)
$457,936,000 shall be for the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition and related field activities in the Office
of Regulatory Affairs; (2) $544,961,000 shall be for the
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs, of which no
less than $39,079,000 shall be available for the Office of
Generic Drugs; (3) $210,000,000 shall be for the Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4)
$105,031,000 shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine
and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory
Affairs; (5) $255,480,000 shall be for the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health and for related field activities in
the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $41,273,000 shall be
for the National Center for Toxicological Research; (7)
$62,007,000 shall be for Rent and Related activities, of
which $25,552,000 is for White Oak Consolidation, other than
the amounts paid to the General Services Administration for
rent; (8) $146,013,000 shall be for payments to the General
Services Administration for rent; and (9) $118,945,000 shall
be for other activities, including the Office of the
Commissioner; the Office of Management; the Office of
External Relations; the Office of Policy and Planning; and
central services for these offices: Provided further, That
funds may be transferred from one specified activity to
another with the prior notification of the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263b may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
In addition, export certification user fees authorized by
21 U.S.C. 381 may be credited to this account, to remain
available until expended.
Buildings and Facilities
For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $4,950,000, to remain available until
expended.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the rental
of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere, $99,502,000, including not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
Farm Credit Administration
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Not to exceed $44,250,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including rescissions and transfers of funds)
Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall
be available for the purchase, in addition to those
specifically provided for, of not to exceed 292 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 290 shall be for replacement only,
and for the hire of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions,
information technology infrastructure, fruit fly program and
rearing facility design, emerging plant pests, boll weevil
program, low pathogenic avian influenza program, highly
pathogenic avian influenza program, up to $33,107,000 in
animal health monitoring and surveillance for the animal
identification system, up to $1,500,000 in the scrapie
program for indemnities, up to $3,970,000 in the emergency
management systems program for the vaccine bank, up to
$1,000,000 for wildlife services methods development, up to
$1,000,000 of the wildlife services operations program for
aviation safety, and up to 25 percent of the screwworm
program; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field automation
and information management project; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for
competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), and funds for
the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service
Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county
committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income
country training program, and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign
Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of
offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange
rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural
Service.
Sec. 703. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by
this Act or other available unobligated discretionary
balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working
Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital
equipment necessary for the delivery of financial,
administrative, and information technology services of
primary benefit to the agencies of the Department of
Agriculture: Provided, That none of the funds made available
by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency
administrator: Provided further, That none of the funds
transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to this
section shall be available for obligation without the prior
notification of the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress.
Sec. 704. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 705. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 706. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to pay indirect costs charged against competitive
agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards
issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service that exceed 20 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded
competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service shall be available to pay full
allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section
9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
Sec. 707. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended
to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year for
the following accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund
program account, the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunication Loans program account, and the Rural
Housing Insurance Fund program account.
Sec. 708. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants.
Sec. 709. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
Sec. 710. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 711. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture or the Food and
Drug Administration shall be used to transmit or otherwise
make
[[Page S11135]]
available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-
Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or
responses to questions that are a result of information
requested for the appropriations hearing process.
Sec. 712. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer unless prior
notification has been transmitted to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress: Provided further,
That none of the funds available to the Department of
Agriculture for information technology shall be obligated for
projects over $25,000 prior to receipt of written approval by
the Chief Information Officer.
Sec. 713. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which--
(1) creates new programs;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
project or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted;
(4) relocates an office or employees;
(5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or
(6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities
presently performed by Federal employees; unless the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are
notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, or the Chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before implementing
a program or activity not carried out during the previous
fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded by this
Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
Sec. 714. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide
financial and technical assistance--
(1) through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
program for--
(A) the Matanuska River erosion control project in Alaska;
(B) the Little Red River irrigation project in Arkansas;
(C) the Manoa Watershed project in Hawaii;
(D) the West Tarkio project in Iowa;
(E) the West Branch DuPage River Watershed project in
DuPage County, Illinois; and
(F) the Coal Creek project in Utah;
(2) through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
program to carry out the East Locust Creek Watershed Plan
Revision in Missouri, including up to 100 percent of the
engineering assistance and 75 percent cost share for
construction cost of site RW1; and
(3) through the Watershed Flood Prevention Operations
program to carry out the Little Otter Creek Watershed
project. The sponsoring local organization may obtain land
rights by perpetual easements.
Sec. 715. None of the funds made available to the Food and
Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to close or
relocate, or to plan to close or relocate, the Food and Drug
Administration Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis in St.
Louis, Missouri, outside the city or county limits of St.
Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 716. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or
made available by this Act, $2,500,000 is appropriated for
the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowships, through the Congressional Hunger Center.
Sec. 717. There is hereby appropriated $1,000,000 for a
grant to the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, to
remain available until expended.
Sec. 718. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds made available in this Act for competitive research
grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), the Secretary may use up to 30
percent of the amount provided to carry out a competitive
grants program under the same terms and conditions as those
provided in section 401 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621).
Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out section 14(h)(1) of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012(h)(1)).
Sec. 720. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to expend the $3,000,000
made available by section 9006(f) of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(f)).
Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out an
environmental quality incentives program authorized by
chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in excess of
$1,031,000,000.
Sec. 722. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this or any other Act shall be used to pay
the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section
601(j)(1) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C.
950bb(j)(1)).
Sec. 723. None of the funds made available in fiscal year
2007 or preceding fiscal years for programs authorized under
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in excess of $20,000,000 shall be
used to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of eligible commodities under section 302(f)(2)(A) of
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1):
Provided, That any such funds made available to reimburse the
Commodity Credit Corporation shall only be used pursuant to
section 302(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust Act.
Sec. 724. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section
6401(a) of Public Law 107-171, in excess of $28,000,000.
Sec. 725. Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (e)(2) of
section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C.
940c(c) and (e)(2)) in implementing section 313A of that Act,
the Secretary shall, with the consent of the lender,
structure the schedule for payment of the annual fee, not to
exceed an average of 30 basis points per year for the term of
the loan, to ensure that sufficient funds are available to
pay the subsidy costs for note guarantees under that section.
Sec. 726. There is hereby appropriated $750,000, to remain
available until expended, for the Denali Commission to
address deficiencies in solid waste disposal sites which
threaten to contaminate rural drinking water supplies.
Sec. 727. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 2502
of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $63,000,000.
Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 2503
of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $58,000,000.
Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a ground and
surface water conservation program authorized by section 2301
of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $54,000,000.
Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to issue a final rule in furtherance of, or otherwise
implement, the proposed rule on cost-sharing for animal and
plant health emergency programs of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service published on July 8, 2003 (Docket
No. 02-062-1; 68 Fed. Reg. 40541).
Sec. 731. Funds made available under section 1240I and
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 in the
current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to
disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year, and are
not available for new obligations. Funds made available under
section 524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C.
1524(b), in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 shall
remain available until expended to disburse obligations made
in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively, and
are not available for new obligations.
Sec. 732. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) the City of Palmer, Alaska shall be eligible to receive
a water and waste disposal grant under section 306(a) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1926(a)) in an amount that is equal to not more than 75
percent of the total cost of providing water and sewer
service to the proposed hospital in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, Alaska;
(2) or any percentage of cost limitation in current law or
regulations, the construction projects known as the Tri-
Valley Community Center addition in Healy, Alaska; the Cold
Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska; and the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks Allied Health Learning Center
skill labs/classrooms shall be eligible to receive Community
Facilities grants in amounts that are equal to not more than
75 percent of the total facility costs: Provided, That for
the purposes of this paragraph, the Cold Climate Housing
Research Center is designated an ``essential community
facility'' for rural Alaska;
(3) for any fiscal year and hereafter, in the case of a
high cost isolated rural area in Alaska that is not connected
to a road system, the maximum level for the single family
housing assistance shall be 150 percent of the median
household income level in the nonmetropolitan areas of the
State and 115 percent of all other eligible areas of the
State; and
(4) any former RUS borrower that has repaid or prepaid an
insured, direct or guaranteed loan
[[Page S11136]]
under the Rural Electrification Act, or any not-for-profit
utility that is eligible to receive an insured or direct loan
under such Act, shall be eligible for assistance under
Section 313(b)(2)(B) of such Act in the same manner as a
borrower under such Act.
Sec. 733. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make funding and
other assistance available through the emergency watershed
protection program under section 403 of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203) to repair and prevent
damage to non-Federal land in watersheds that have been
impaired by fires initiated by the Federal Government and
shall waive cost sharing requirements for the funding and
assistance.
Sec. 734. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for salaries and expenses to draft or implement any
regulation or rule insofar as it would require
recertification of rural status for each electric and
telecommunications borrower for the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunication Loans program.
Sec. 735. The Secretary of Agriculture may use any
unobligated carryover funds made available for any program
administered by the Rural Utilities Service (not including
funds made available under the heading ``Rural Community
Advancement Program'' in any Act of appropriation) to carry
out section 315 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 940e).
Sec. 736. In addition to other amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act, there is hereby
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $10,000,000, of
which not to exceed 5 percent may be available for
administrative expenses, to remain available until expended,
to make specialty crop block grants under section 101 of the
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
465; 7 U.S.C. 1621 note).
Sec. 737. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and
directed to quitclaim to the City of Elkhart, Kansas, all
rights, title and interests of the United States in that
tract of land comprising 151.7 acres, more or less, located
in Morton County, Kansas, and more specifically described in
a deed dated March 11, 1958, from the United States of
America to the City of Elkhart, State of Kansas, and filed of
record April 4, 1958 at Book 34 at Page 520 in the office of
the Register of Deeds of Morton County, Kansas as necessary,
to provide for additional uses of said land for any public
purpose.
Sec. 738. (a) Section 18(f)(1) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(f)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2004'' and inserting
``2006''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in the matter before clause (i), by striking ``June
2005'' and inserting ``May 2006''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``75'' and inserting
``78''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) take effect on
January 1, 2007.
Sec. 739. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to study, complete a study of, or enter into a
contract with a private party to carry out, without specific
authorization in a subsequent Act of Congress, a competitive
sourcing activity of the Secretary of Agriculture, including
support personnel of the Department of Agriculture, relating
to rural development or farm loan programs.
Sec. 740. Of the unobligated balances under section 32 of
the Act of August 24, 1935, $9,900,000 are hereby rescinded.
Sec. 741. None of the funds made available under this Act
shall be available to pay the administrative expenses of a
State agency that, after the date of enactment of this Act
and prior to receiving certification in accordance with the
provisions set forth in section 17(h)(11)(E) of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966, authorizes any new for-profit
vendor(s) to transact food instruments under the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) if it is expected that more than 50 percent of
the annual revenue of the vendor from the sale of food items
will be derived from the sale of supplemental foods that are
obtained with WIC food instruments, except that the Secretary
may approve the authorization of such a vendor if the
approval is necessary to assure participant access to program
benefits.
Sec. 742. (a) Subject to subsection (b), none of the funds
made available in this Act may be used to--
(1) grant a waiver of a financial conflict of interest
requirement pursuant to section 505(n)(4) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(n)(4)) for any
voting member of an advisory committee or panel of the Food
and Drug Administration; or
(2) make a certification under section 208(b)(3) of title
18, United States Code, for any such voting member.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a waiver or
certification if--
(1)(A) not later than 15 days prior to a meeting of an
advisory committee or panel to which such waiver or
certification applies, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services discloses on the Internet website of the Food and
Drug Administration--
(i) the nature of the conflict of interest at issue; and
(ii) the nature and basis of such waiver or certification
(other than information exempted from disclosure under
section 552 of title 5, United States Code); or
(B) in the case of a conflict of interest that becomes
known to the Secretary less than 15 days prior to a meeting
to which such waiver or certification applies, the Secretary
shall make such public disclosure as soon as possible
thereafter, but in no event later than the date of such
meeting; and
(2)(A) not later than 15 days prior to a meeting of an
advisory committee or panel, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services discloses on the Internet website of the Food
and Drug Administration--
(i) any recusal due to the potential for conflict of
interest, and
(ii) the nature of the conflict of interest at issue
(other than information exempted from disclosure under
section 552 of title 5, United States Code); or
(B) in the case of a recusal that becomes known to the
Secretary less than 15 days prior to a meeting to which such
recusal applies, the Secretary shall make such public
disclosure as soon as possible thereafter, but in no event
later than the date of such meeting.
(c) None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used to make a new appointment to an advisory committee or
panel of the Food and Drug Administration unless the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs submits a semi-annual report
to the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Committees on Appropriations of the
House and Senate, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the
House, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee of the Senate on the efforts made to identify
qualified persons for such appointments with minimal or no
potential conflicts of interest.
Such report must include a description (that identifies no
individual by name or affiliation), by advisory committee or
panel, of the types of experts sought, the number of
candidates considered, the number of those candidates willing
to serve, the number of those willing to serve who have no or
low involvement as specified in the FDA Waiver Criteria 2000
document, the number of new appointees that have no or low
involvement as specified in the FDA Waiver Criteria 2000
document, the number of vacancies remaining, the number of
meetings and waivers granted by type of meeting, and, when an
individual who has a medium or high involvement as specified
in the FDA Waiver Criteria 2000 document is appointed, the
rationale for such appointment.
Sec. 743. Section 514(f)(3) of the Housing Act of 1949 is
amended by inserting ``or the processing of such
commodities'' after ``unprocessed stage''.
Sec. 744. Starting in fiscal year 2006, the Secretary shall
administer the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program
exclusively in accordance with 7 CFR Part 1491 as published
on May 16, 2003.
Sec. 745. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and until the receipt of the decennial Census in the year
2010, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider--
(1) the City of Lake City, Florida and the City of Parsons,
Kansas rural areas for purposes of eligibility for Rural
Utilities Service water and waste water loans and grants;
(2) the City of Lansing, Kansas a rural area for purposes
of eligibility for Rural Housing Service programs, and the
City of Leavenworth, Kansas and the City of Lansing, Kansas
as separate geographic entities for purposes of Rural
Development grants and loans;
(3) the City of Vineland, New Jersey and the City of
Millville, New Jersey, and urbanized areas contiguous and
adjacent to both cities, (including individuals and entities
with projects within these cities and areas) as eligible for
all Rural Business Program loans and grants except rural
development (intermediary relending) loans authorized by
section 1323 of the Food Security Act of 1985 and rural
economic development loans and grants authorized by section
313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7
U.S.C. 940C);
(4) the City of Celina, Ohio and the City of Ashtabula,
Ohio as eligible for the purposes of Rural Development grants
and loans;
(5) the Gooseberry Lake Project in the State of Iowa as
eligible for the Rural Utilities Service water and wastewater
loans and grant program including the purchase of land and
moving of utilities; and
(6) the Cities of Alamo, Mercedes, Weslaco, and Donna in
the State of Texas as eligible for the purposes of Rural
Development grants and loans.
Sec. 746. Of the appropriations available for payments for
the nutrition and family education program for low-income
areas under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C.
343(d)), if the payment allocation pursuant to section
1425(c) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3175(c)) would be less
than $100,000 for any institution eligible under section
3(d)(2) of the Smith-Lever Act, the Secretary shall adjust
payment allocations under section 1425(c) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 to ensure that each institution receives a payment of
not less than $100,000.
Sec. 747. There is hereby appropriated $4,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for a grant to the National
Center for Natural Products Research for construction or
renovation to carry out the research objectives of the
natural products research grant issued by the Food and Drug
Administration.
Sec. 748. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act shall be used to transfer funds or assess charges
or fees in excess of 5 percent from any program, project, or
activity funded under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
Sec. 749. There is hereby appropriated $1,000,000 to
continue section 791 of Public Law 109-97.
Sec. 750. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
service areas being acquired by Mid-Kansas Electric
Cooperative shall be considered eligible for financing under
the provisions of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as
amended.
Sec. 751. Section 759 of Public Law 106-78 (7 U.S.C. 3242)
is amended--
[[Page S11137]]
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``2006'' and
inserting ``2011''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``2006'' and
inserting ``2011''.
Sec. 752. The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601
et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 202 (7 U.S.C. 5622)--
(A) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(B) by redesignating subsections (d) through (l) as
subsections (b) through (j), respectively;
(C) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B))--
(i) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and'' after
``exports;'';
(ii) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``commodities; and''
and inserting ``commodities.''; and
(iii) by striking paragraph (4);
(D) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B))--
(i) by striking ``(1) In general.--''; and
(ii) by striking paragraph (2); and
(E) in subsection (g)(2) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B)), by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)''; and
(2) in section 211(b) (7 U.S.C. 5641(b))--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``(1) Export credit guarantees.--''; and
(ii) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2).
Sec. 753. Section 343 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and, in the case of
subtitle B, commercial fishing'' before the period at the end
of each of paragraphs (1) and (2); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Definition of Farm.--In subtitle B, the term `farm'
includes a commercial fishing enterprise.''.
Sec. 754. (a) Section 1307(a)(6) of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7957(a)(6)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``2006'' and
inserting ``2007''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2008''.
(b) The authority provided by section 1307(a)(6) of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
7957(a)(6)), as amended by subsection (a), shall terminate
beginning with the 2008 crop of peanuts, and shall be
considered to have terminated notwithstanding section 257 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(2 U.S.C. 907).
Sec. 755. Travel Relating to Commercial Sales of
Agricultural and Medical Goods. Section 910(a) of the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22
U.S.C. 7209(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorization of Travel Relating to Commercial Sales
of Agricultural and Medical Goods.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall promulgate regulations under which the travel-
related transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section
515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, are
authorized by general license for travel to, from, or within
Cuba for the purpose of conferring, exhibiting, marketing,
planning, sales negotiation, delivery, expediting,
facilitating, or servicing commercial export sale of
agricultural and medical goods pursuant to the provisions of
this title.''.
Sec. 756. Additional Amounts for Veterans. For an
additional amount for ``General Operating Expenses'' for
necessary expenses to respond to the data theft at the
Department of Veterans Affairs and to provide remedial
assistance to veterans who have had personal data stolen from
the Department of Veterans Affairs, $160,000,000: Provided,
That the amount provided in this section is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res.
83 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2007, as made applicable in the Senate by
section 7035 of Public Law 109-234.
Sec. 757. (a) The Senate finds that--
(1) the United States cattle industry produces abundant,
safe, and healthful food for consumers in the United States
and around the world;
(2) Japan prohibited imports of beef from the United States
during the period beginning December 2003 and ending December
2005, after a single case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE, or ``mad cow disease'') was found in a Canadian-born
animal in Washington State;
(3) the United States has implemented and maintained a BSE
surveillance and safeguard program that exceeds the
internationally recognized standards of the World
Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for BSE control,
eradication, and testing to protect human and animal health;
(4) the United States and the Government of Japan concluded
an agreement on December 12, 2005, that established the
conditions under which beef exports to Japan could resume;
(5) as a result of errors by a single United States
exporter certified to sell beef to Japan and inadequate
oversight by the Department of Agriculture, a single shipment
of United States beef was found to be noncompliant with the
terms of the agreement resulting in a suspension of all
United States beef exports to Japan;
(6) the United States has taken substantive corrective
actions to ensure that United States beef exports to Japan
are in full compliance with the terms of the agreement, fully
disclosed the actions taken to the Government of Japan, and
allowed Japanese officials the opportunity to review those
actions and personally inspect and determine the eligibility
of all United States beef processing plants certified for the
export of beef to Japan;
(7) notwithstanding the membership of Japan in the OIE and
the commitment of Japan under the Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the
World Trade Organization to apply sanitary and phytosanitary
measures only to the extent necessary to protect human,
animal, and plant health, based on scientific principles,
Japan continues to maintain an unjustified suspension of
imports of United States beef; and
(8) the continued violation by Japan of the spirit and
letter of the World Trade Organization commitments of Japan
has resulted in the cumulative economic loss to the United
States beef industry of approximately $6,300,000,000 and
current annual economic trade losses of $3,140,000,000 per
year.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that if, by the date of
enactment of this Act, Japan does not permit the importation
of beef from the United States, additional tariffs on
selected articles that are grown by, the products of, or
manufactured by Japan and that enter the customs territory of
the United States should be imposed until Japan permits the
importation of beef from the United States.
TITLE VIII--EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Farm Relief Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 802. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Additional coverage.--The term ``additional coverage''
has the meaning given the term in section 502(b)(1) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)(1)).
(2) Disaster county.--The term ``disaster county'' means--
(A) a county included in the geographic area covered by a
natural disaster declaration; and
(B) each county contiguous to a county described in
subparagraph (A).
(3) Hurricane-affected county.--The term ``hurricane-
affected county'' means--
(A) a county included in the geographic area covered by a
natural disaster declaration related to Hurricane Katrina,
Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, or a related condition; and
(B) each county contiguous to a county described in
subparagraph (A).
(4) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity''
means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock) for
which the producers on a farm are eligible to obtain a policy
or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(5) Livestock.--The term ``livestock'' includes--
(A) cattle (including dairy cattle);
(B) bison;
(C) sheep;
(D) swine; and
(E) other livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
(6) Natural disaster declaration.--The term ``natural
disaster declaration'' means--
(A) a natural disaster declared by the Secretary--
(i) during calendar year 2005 under section 321(a) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1961(a)); or
(ii) during calendar year 2006 under that section, but for
which a request was pending as of the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(B) a major disaster or emergency designated by the
President--
(i) during calendar year 2005 under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.); or
(ii) during calendar year 2006 under that Act, but for
which a request was pending as of the date of enactment of
this Act.
(7) Noninsurable commodity.--The term ``noninsurable
commodity'' means a crop for which the producers on a farm
are eligible to obtain assistance under section 196 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
Subtitle A--Agricultural Production Losses
SEC. 811. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make emergency financial assistance authorized under this
section available to producers on a farm that have incurred
qualifying losses described in subsection (c).
(b) Administration.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the Secretary shall make assistance available under this
section in the same manner as provided under section 815 of
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
(Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), including using the
same loss thresholds for quantity and economic losses as were
used in administering that section, except that the payment
rate shall be 50 percent of the established price, instead of
65 percent.
(2) Noninsured producers.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3), for producers on a farm that were eligible to acquire
crop insurance for the applicable production loss and failed
to do so or failed to submit an application for the
noninsured assistance program for the loss, the Secretary
shall make assistance in accordance with paragraph (1),
except that the payment rate shall be 35 percent of the
established price, instead of 50 percent.
(3) Loss thresholds for quality losses.--In the case of a
payment for quality loss for a crop under subsection (c)(2),
the loss thresholds for quality loss for the crop shall be
determined under subsection (d).
(c) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section shall
be made available to producers on farms, other than producers
of sugar cane and sugar beets, that incurred qualifying
quantity or quality losses for--
[[Page S11138]]
(1) the 2005 crop due to damaging weather or any related
condition (including losses due to crop diseases, insects,
and delayed harvest), as determined by the Secretary; and
(2) the 2006 crop due to flooding in California, Hawaii,
and Vermont that occurred prior to the date of enactment of
this Act and for which a petition for a disaster designation
has been filed with the Secretary not later than that date.
(d) Quality Losses.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of a
payment made to producers on a farm for a quality loss for a
crop under subsection (c)(2) shall be equal to the amount
obtained by multiplying--
(A) 65 percent of the payment quantity determined under
paragraph (2); by
(B) 50 percent of the payment rate determined under
paragraph (3).
(2) Payment quantity.--For the purpose of paragraph (1)(A),
the payment quantity for quality losses for a crop of a
commodity on a farm shall equal the lesser of--
(A) the actual production of the crop affected by a quality
loss of the commodity on the farm; or
(B) the quantity of expected production of the crop
affected by a quality loss of the commodity on the farm,
using the formula used by the Secretary to determine quantity
losses for the crop of the commodity under subsection (c)(1).
(3) Payment rate.--For the purpose of paragraph (1)(B) and
in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6), the payment rate
for quality losses for a crop of a commodity on a farm shall
be equal to the difference between--
(A) the per unit market value that the units of the crop
affected by the quality loss would have had if the crop had
not suffered a quality loss; and
(B) the per unit market value of the units of the crop
affected by the quality loss.
(4) Eligibility.--For producers on a farm to be eligible to
obtain a payment for a quality loss for a crop under
subsection (c)(2), the amount obtained by multiplying the per
unit loss determined under paragraph (1) by the number of
units affected by the quality loss shall be at least 25
percent of the value that all affected production of the crop
would have had if the crop had not suffered a quality loss.
(5) Marketing contracts.--In the case of any production of
a commodity that is sold pursuant to 1 or more marketing
contracts (regardless of whether the contract is entered into
by the producers on the farm before or after harvest) and for
which appropriate documentation exists, the quantity
designated in the contracts shall be eligible for quality
loss assistance based on the 1 or more prices specified in
the contracts.
(6) Other production.--For any additional production of a
commodity for which a marketing contract does not exist or
for which production continues to be owned by the producer,
quality losses shall be based on the average local market
discounts for reduced quality, as determined by the
appropriate State committee of the Farm Service Agency.
(7) Quality adjustments and discounts.--The appropriate
State committee of the Farm Service Agency shall identify the
appropriate quality adjustment and discount factors to be
considered in carrying out this subsection, including--
(A) the average local discounts actually applied to a crop;
and
(B) the discount schedules applied to loans made by the
Farm Service Agency or crop insurance coverage under the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(8) Eligible production.--The Secretary shall carry out
this subsection in a fair and equitable manner for all
eligible production, including the production of fruits and
vegetables, other specialty crops, and field crops.
(e) Timing.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall make payments to producers on a farm for a crop under
this section not later than 60 days after the date the
producers on the farm submit to the Secretary a completed
application for the payments.
(2) Interest.--If the Secretary does not make payments to
the producers on a farm by the date described in paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall pay to the producers on a farm
interest on the payments at a rate equal to the current (as
of the sign-up deadline established by the Secretary) market
yield on outstanding, marketable obligations of the United
States with maturities of 30 years.
SEC. 812. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.
(a) Livestock Compensation Program.--
(1) Use of commodity credit corporation funds.--Effective
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry
out the 2002 Livestock Compensation Program announced by the
Secretary on October 10, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 63070), to
provide compensation for livestock losses during calendar
years 2005 and 2006 for losses that occurred prior to the
date of enactment of this Act (including wildfire disaster
losses in the State of Texas and other States) due to a
disaster, as determined by the Secretary, except that the
payment rate shall be 75 percent of the payment rate
established for the 2002 Livestock Compensation Program.
(2) Eligible applicants.--In carrying out the program
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide
assistance to any applicant that--
(A)(i) conducts a livestock operation that is located in a
disaster county, including any applicant conducting a
livestock operation with eligible livestock (within the
meaning of the livestock assistance program under section
101(b) of division B of Public Law 108-324 (118 Stat. 1234));
or
(ii) produces an animal described in section 10806(a)(1) of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (21 U.S.C.
321d(a)(1)); and
(B) meets all other eligibility requirements established by
the Secretary for the program.
(3) Mitigation.--In determining the eligibility for or
amount of payments for which a producer is eligible under the
livestock compensation program, the Secretary shall not
penalize a producer that takes actions (recognizing disaster
conditions) that reduce the average number of livestock the
producer owned for grazing during the production year for
which assistance is being provided.
(b) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make livestock indemnity payments to producers on farms that
have incurred livestock losses during calendar years 2005 and
2006 for losses that occurred prior to the date of enactment
of this Act (including wildfire disaster losses in the State
of Texas and other States) due to a disaster, as determined
by the Secretary, including losses due to hurricanes, floods,
anthrax, and wildfires.
(2) Payment rates.--Indemnity payments to a producer on a
farm under paragraph (1) shall be made at a rate of not less
than 30 percent of the market value of the applicable
livestock on the day before the date of death of the
livestock, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use $13,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments
under the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Payment Program
under part 784 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or a
successor regulation) for each qualifying ewe lamb retained
or purchased during the period beginning on January 1, 2006,
and ending on December 31, 2006.
(2) Ineligibility for other assistance.--A producer that
receives assistance under this subsection shall not be
eligible to receive assistance under subsection (a).
SEC. 813. FLOODED CROP AND GRAZING LAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall compensate eligible
owners of flooded crop and grazing land in--
(1) the Devils Lake basin; and
(2) the McHugh, Lake Laretta, and Rose Lake closed drainage
areas of the State of North Dakota.
(b) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive compensation
under this section, an owner shall own land described in
subsection (a) that, during the 2 crop years preceding
receipt of compensation, was rendered incapable of use for
the production of an agricultural commodity or for grazing
purposes (in a manner consistent with the historical use of
the land) as the result of flooding, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) Inclusions.--Land described in paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) land that has been flooded;
(B) land that has been rendered inaccessible due to
flooding; and
(C) a reasonable buffer strip adjoining the flooded land,
as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Administration.--The Secretary may establish--
(A) reasonable minimum acreage levels for individual
parcels of land for which owners may receive compensation
under this section; and
(B) the location and area of adjoining flooded land for
which owners may receive compensation under this section.
(c) Sign-up.--The Secretary shall establish a sign-up
program for eligible owners to apply for compensation from
the Secretary under this section.
(d) Compensation Payments.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
rate of an annual compensation payment under this section
shall be equal to 90 percent of the average annual per acre
rental payment rate (at the time of entry into the contract)
for comparable crop or grazing land that has not been flooded
and remains in production in the county where the flooded
land is located, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Reduction.--An annual compensation payment under this
section shall be reduced by the amount of any conservation
program rental payments or Federal agricultural commodity
program payments received by the owner for the land during
any crop year for which compensation is received under this
section.
(3) Exclusion.--During any year in which an owner receives
compensation for flooded land under this section, the owner
shall not be eligible to participate in or receive benefits
for the flooded land under--
(A) the Federal crop insurance program established under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
(B) the noninsured crop assistance program established
under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333); or
(C) any Federal agricultural crop disaster assistance
program.
(e) Relationship to Agricultural Commodity Programs.--The
Secretary, by regulation, shall provide for the preservation
of cropland base, allotment history, and payment yields
applicable to land described in subsection (a) that was
rendered incapable of use for the production of an
agricultural commodity or for grazing purposes as the result
of flooding.
(f) Use of Land.--
(1) In general.--An owner that receives compensation under
this section for flooded land shall take such actions as are
necessary to not degrade any wildlife habitat on the land
that has naturally developed as a result of the flooding.
(2) Recreational activities.--To encourage owners that
receive compensation for flooded
[[Page S11139]]
land to allow public access to and use of the land for
recreational activities, as determined by the Secretary, the
Secretary may--
(A) offer an eligible owner additional compensation; and
(B) provide compensation for additional acreage under this
section.
(g) Funding.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use $6,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this
section.
(2) Pro-rated payments.--In a case in which the amount made
available under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year is
insufficient to compensate all eligible owners under this
section, the Secretary shall pro-rate payments for that
fiscal year on a per acre basis.
SEC. 814. SUGAR BEET DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $24,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
assistance to sugar beet producers that suffered production
losses (including quality losses) for the 2005 crop year.
(b) Requirement.--The Secretary shall make payments under
subsection (a) in the same manner as payments were made under
section 208 of the Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003
(Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 544), including using the same
indemnity benefits as were used in carrying out that section.
(c) Hawaii.--The Secretary shall use $6,000,000 of funds of
the Commodity Credit Corporation to assist sugarcane growers
in Hawaii by making a payment in that amount to an
agricultural transportation cooperative in Hawaii, the
members of which are eligible to obtain a loan under section
156(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272(a)).
SEC. 815. BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS HERD INDEMNIFICATION.
The Secretary shall use $2,000,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to indemnify producers that
suffered losses to herds of cattle due to bovine tuberculosis
during calendar year 2005.
SEC. 816. REDUCTION IN PAYMENTS.
The amount of any payment for which a producer is eligible
under this subtitle shall be reduced by any amount received
by the producer for the same loss or any similar loss under--
(1) the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,
and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148; 119
Stat. 2680);
(2) an agricultural disaster assistance provision contained
in the announcement of the Secretary on January 26, 2006; or
(3) the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery,
2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 418).
Subtitle B--Supplemental Nutrition and Agricultural Economic Disaster
Assistance
SEC. 821. REPLENISHMENT OF SECTION 32.
(a) Definition of Specialty Crop.--In this section:
(1) In general.--The term ``specialty crop'' means any
agricultural crop.
(2) Exception.--The term ``specialty crop'' does not
include--
(A) wheat;
(B) feed grains;
(C) oilseeds;
(D) cotton;
(E) rice;
(F) peanuts; or
(G) milk.
(b) Base State Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use $25,000,000 of
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make grants to
the several States to be used to support activities that
promote agriculture.
(2) Amounts.--The amount of the grants shall be $500,000 to
each of the several States.
(c) Grants for Value of Production.--The Secretary shall
use $74,500,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to make a grant to each of the several States in an amount
equal to the product obtained by multiplying--
(1) the share of the State of the total value of specialty
crop and livestock of the United States for the 2004 crop
year, as determined by the Secretary; by
(2) $74,500,000.
(d) Special Crop and Livestock Priority.--As a condition on
the receipt of a grant under this section, a State shall
agree to give priority to the support of specialty crops and
livestock in the use of the grant funds.
(e) Use of Funds.--A State may use funds from a grant
awarded under this section--
(1) to supplement State food bank programs or other
nutrition assistance programs;
(2) to promote the purchase, sale, or consumption of
agricultural products;
(3) to provide economic assistance to agricultural
producers, giving a priority to the support of specialty
crops and livestock; or
(4) for other purposes as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 822. SUPPLEMENTAL ECONOMIC LOSS PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
shall make a supplemental economic loss payment to--
(1) any producers on a farm that received a direct payment
for crop year 2005 under title I of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.); and
(2) any dairy producer that was eligible to receive a
payment during the 2005 calendar year under section 1502 of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
7982).
(b) Amount.--
(1) Covered commodities.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
amount of a supplemental economic loss payment made to the
producers on a farm under subsection (a)(1) shall be equal to
the product obtained by multiplying--
(A) 30 percent of the direct payment rate in effect for the
covered commodity of the producers on the farm;
(B) 85 percent of the base acres of the covered commodity
of the producers on the farm; and
(C) the payment yield for each covered commodity of the
producers on the farm.
(2) Dairy payments.--
(A) Distribution.--Supplemental economic loss payments
under subsection (a)(2) shall be distributed in a manner that
is consistent with section 1502 of the Farm and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7982).
(B) Maximum amount.--Subject to paragraph (3), the total
amount available for supplemental economic loss payments
under subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed $147,000,000.
(3) Limitations.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary
shall ensure that no person receives supplemental economic
loss payments under--
(i) subsection (a)(1) in excess of the per person
limitations applicable to a person that receives payments
described in subsection (a)(1); and
(ii) subsection (a)(2) in excess of the per dairy operation
limitation applicable to producers on a dairy farm described
in subsection (a)(2).
(B) Administration.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the
Secretary--
(i) shall establish separate limitations for supplemental
economic loss payments received under this section; and
(ii) shall not include the supplemental economic loss
payments in applying payment limitations under section 1001
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1001) for payments
made pursuant to the underlying normal operation of the
program described in subsection (a)(1) or section 1502 of the
Farm and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7982).
SEC. 823. EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall use an additional $53,600,000 of funds
of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out emergency
measures identified by the Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service as of the date of enactment of this Act
through the emergency watershed protection program
established under section 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203).
Subtitle C--Conservation
SEC. 831. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE.
(a) Authority to Clear Debris and Animal Carcasses.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary,
acting through the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
using funds made available for the emergency watershed
protection program established under section 403 of the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203), may provide
financial and technical assistance to remove and dispose of
debris and animal carcasses that could adversely affect
health and safety on non-Federal land in a hurricane-affected
county.
(b) Authority to Use Certain Practices.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary, acting through the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, may use direct check-
writing practices and electronic transfers to provide
financial and technical assistance under the emergency
watershed protection program established under section 403 of
the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203) in a
hurricane-affected county.
SEC. 832. EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall use an additional $17,000,000 of funds
of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out emergency
measures identified by the Administrator of the Farm Service
Agency as of the date of enactment of this Act through the
emergency conservation program established under title IV of
the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.).
Subtitle D--Farm Service Agency
SEC. 841. FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL.
The Secretary shall use $13,400,000 of funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to hire additional County Farm
Service Agency personnel--
(1) to expedite the implementation of, and delivery under,
the agricultural disaster and economic assistance programs
under this title; and
(2) as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry
out other agriculture and disaster assistance programs.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous
SEC. 851. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE IMMUNIZATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Defense may provide immunizations to employees of the
Department of Agriculture involved in direct recovery work in
a hurricane-affected county.
SEC. 852. WAIVER OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
may provide assistance in a hurricane-affected county under
the emergency conservation program established under title IV
of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 et
seq.) without regard to subtitle C of title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).
SEC. 853. FUNDING.
The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and
authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
this title, to remain available until expended.
SEC. 854. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this title.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this title shall be made without regard
to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
[[Page S11140]]
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
Subtitle F--Emergency Designation
SEC. 861. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.
The amounts provided in this title are designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res.
83 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2007, as made applicable in the Senate by
section 7035 of Public Law 109-234.
This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I am pleased to bring H.R. 5384,
the fiscal year 2007 Agriculture appropriations bill, to the Senate for
its consideration. It was written after carefully examining the
administration's budget proposal, holding a number of hearings, and
receiving significant input from Senators and other stakeholders. It
was approved unanimously by the subcommittee on June 20 and reported to
the Senate by the full committee on June 22. The bill is the product of
a completely bipartisan effort.
I thank Senator Kohl and his excellent staff for their hard work. We
have established a pattern of bipartisanship in this subcommittee which
we are delighted has continued on in this bill as well.
The bill is commonly known as the Agriculture appropriations bill,
but its impact goes far beyond the farms and ranches of the United
States. The largest portion of the funding in this bill goes to
nutrition and food programs for mothers and children, low-income
individuals, and senior citizens. It also funds the agencies which
conduct vital agricultural research, protect America's food and drug
supply, conserve soil and water resources and wildlife habitat, and
promotes the economic development of rural America. It is, indeed, a
far-reaching measure.
The bill the Senate is now considering totals approximately $98.3
billion in mandatory and discretionary funding. Of this amount, $18.2
billion is for discretionary funding, fully utilizing the 302(b)
allocation which we were given.
To touch on a few of the highlights, specifically, the bill increases
funding by 5 percent for the land grant colleges, historically Black
land grant institutions, Hispanic serving institutions, forestry
schools, and the National Research Initiative. This is the first
substantial increase in the formula funds since I took over the
chairmanship of the Agriculture Subcommittee in these areas.
It restores funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to
$108.3 million and funds the Women, Infants, and Children Program at
$5.264 billion, fully meeting the estimated caseload requirements. It
allows the enrollment of 250,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program
and restores the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.
Further, it provides for new research into renewable energy and $25
million in renewable energy loans and grants. It fully funds the
President's request for avian influenza at USDA and FDA. It maintains
the safest food supply in the world by fully funding the Food Safety
Inspection Service.
And it speeds the approval of generic drugs to the marketplace by
increasing the Office of Generic Drugs at the FDA by 10 million.
All in all, I believe this is a bill Members can be proud of, and I
am happy to bring it to the floor.
At this point, I am happy to yield so we can hear from the
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, with whom we have
worked so close over these last 4 years, Senator Kohl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President and Chairman Bennett.
I rise today in support of H.R. 5384, which is the fiscal year 2007
appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies.
This year, the Agriculture Subcommittee received an allocation of
$18.2 billion. While this was an increase of approximately $1.1 billion
over last year, the increase was largely absorbed by scorekeeping
adjustments driven by the 2006 budget reconciliation bill. However, the
increased allocation, while certainly not a windfall, was certainly a
help in writing a good bill, allowing us to restore programs the
administration proposed to eliminate and provide other critical
programmatic increases.
I believe that Senator Bennett and his staff did an excellent job of
balancing limited funding with important priorities, and I strongly
encourage all Senators to support this bill. I will briefly discuss
some of the highlights of the bill.
Avian flu, while it has not maintained the level of public attention
that it commanded earlier this year, is nevertheless, still a threat to
our agricultural sector and to public health, and this bill provides an
increase of more than $110 million in various accounts for research,
regulatory programs, and vaccine-related funding for highly pathogenic
avian flu. This funding is essential to helping prevent the spread of
avian flu, as well as increasing research in order to contain it where
necessary.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service, charged with ensuring that
the United States continues to have the safest food supply in the
world, received the full funding amount requested by the President.
This includes increased funding for food safety inspections, the food
emergency response network, and information technology costs.
The Food and Drug Administration received an increase of
approximately $100 million above last year's level, including increases
of more than $5 million for food defense, nearly $4 million for drug
safety, and $50 million for pandemic flu preparedness.
I thank Senator Bennett for working with me on one of my highest
priorities for this bill, to give the Office of Generic Drugs at FDA a
$10 million increase over the President's budget, which brings total
funding for the Office of Generic Drugs to nearly $40 million, and
total funding for generic drug approvals within FDA to nearly $75
million. I believe this increase is an important step and I will
continue to work to ensure that FDA has the resources necessary to
decrease the growing backlog of generic drug applications within the
FDA and to make lower-cost generic drugs available to consumers as
early as possible.
In the area of nutrition, the bill provides $5.264 billion, an
increase of $64 million above the President's request, for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children,WIC,
Program. This will fully fund WIC; and the committee did not accept the
President's plans to limit WIC eligibility and to reduce funding to
carry out the program. The bill also restores funding for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, which the President proposed to eliminate.
For the foreign assistance programs, the committee included an
increase of $86 million for international humanitarian food
assistance--providing U.S. commodities to fight hunger throughout the
world--under Public Law 480 title II. With major crises facing us
throughout the world and emergency relief demands continuing to rise,
it is extremely important that this program is funded at the highest
possible level. Mr. President, $100 million is provided for the
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. This program provides what is
oftentimes the only meal a child receives in a day, and is used to
encourage children, especially girls, to come to school in developing
countries.
In conservation accounts, no limitation is provided on the
Conservation Security Program or the Wetlands Reserve Program. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service also received a slight increase.
Funding for Conservation Operations was increased by $4 million over
last year's level; Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations received
over $62 million; the Healthy Forests Reserve Program received $5
million; and funding for Watershed Surveys and Planning, the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program, and Resource Conservation and Development was
maintained at last year's level.
Agricultural research accounts within USDA also received an increase
of approximately $30 million. This includes increases for both
competitively
[[Page S11141]]
awarded research grants and formula-based funding for land grant
universities and minority serving institutions.
In rural development, the Rural Community Advancement Program
received an increase of nearly $20 million over last year's funding--
and $114 million over the President's request--to provide assistance
for infrastructure and essential community facilities in rural
communities. This includes restoring significant cuts for water and
wastewater utility systems in rural communities. The Renewable Energy
Program was funded at twice the level proposed by the administration,
allowing for critical work on ethanol and other alternative fuels. The
committee did not accept the President's proposal to eliminate the
section 515 Direct Rental Housing loan program which since 1963 has
provided construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing for
rural families and elderly residents with very low to moderate incomes.
That administration budget submission is the first proposal to dispose
of this program since its inception.
Overall, as I said earlier, I think that Senator Bennett has done a
good job in making sure that this bill balances limited funding and
multiple priorities. I would like to thank Senator Bennett, for putting
together an excellent bill, as well as Fitz Elder, IV, who has done a
superb job during his first year as clerk of the subcommittee, Dianne
Preece, Stacy McBride, and Graham Harper. Senator Bennett has assembled
a smart, hard-working staff who are always professional and work
seamlessly with my staff, something for which I am very grateful. I
strongly support this bill, and I encourage all Senators to vote in
favor of it.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kohl for his comments and
once again pay tribute to the spirit of bipartisanship he and I have
been able to maintain. I appreciate his kind words about the staff and
the attempts we have made to integrate both staffs so we have had the
kind of professional result to which he has referred.
Now, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement that is in place, I
understand the first order of business will concern agricultural
disaster assistance. So I now ask further unanimous consent that once
the Conrad amendment is offered to the Agriculture appropriations bill,
the time until 5 o'clock be equally divided in the usual form, with a
vote occurring in relation to the Conrad amendment at 5 o'clock today,
with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the
vote. Now, I would add that we do expect a budget point of order to be
raised, and therefore the vote is likely to be on the motion to waive
the budget, assuming that is done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see
Senator Conrad is in the Chamber prepared to discuss his amendment and
expect that probably will take the remainder of the time until we come
to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the chairman and
ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, for the
many courtesies extended to those of us who are seeking to get a vote
on disaster assistance this year. My colleagues, the chairman and
ranking member, Senators Bennett and Kohl, have been generous and kind
with respect to allowing this amendment to be considered, and we deeply
appreciate it. We certainly will not forget it.
The matter before the body is the fundamental question of whether
there is going to be disaster assistance to this Nation's farmers and
ranchers this year.
I also thank Senator Frist for allowing us to take up the Agriculture
Appropriations bill today, allowing me to offer this amendment to
provide agricultural disaster assistance for our farmers and ranchers.
It took a bit of a struggle to achieve this result, to get this
opportunity, but Senator Frist has been exceptionally kind throughout
this discussion and willing to have the Senate discuss this matter.
Some of my colleagues may ask: Senator, the majority has already
indicated they do not intend to finish appropriations bills so what is
the point of this vote?
Well, that is a good question. When we sought this vote, we did not
know that the Agriculture appropriations bill would then not be
completed. We did not know that there was going to be an intention to
stop work on appropriations bills, to leave that all until next year.
We did not know that. So we were working in good faith to put this
before the body as a matter that is urgently needed by tens of
thousands of farm families all across America. So why go on with the
debate and the vote today if this bill is not going to be completed?
There is one very good reason: Depending on how close this vote is,
farmers and ranchers and their bankers will at least have an idea of
whether there is the prospect for disaster assistance next year. It is
going to require a supermajority vote today for us to prevail because
the other side is going to offer a budget point of order. That is their
right. If we are close to the 60 votes, then farmers and ranchers can
assume there is a pretty good likelihood of disaster assistance next
year. If we are not close to 60, then they will be safe in concluding
the prospects, although still possible, are certainly more remote.
Why is this important? Because literally tens of thousands of farm
and ranch families will not be able to go on without disaster
assistance. In my own State, the independent bankers of North Dakota
were meeting in my office when Mr. Hubbard, chief economic adviser,
came to see me on a separate matter. I asked Mr. Hubbard to go into the
conference room to listen to these independent bankers, 11 or 12 of
them from across the State of North Dakota. They told Mr. Hubbard
clearly and directly: If there is no disaster assistance forthcoming, 5
to 10 percent of the farm and ranch families in North Dakota will be
forced off the land. That is how serious the current circumstance is.
It is why we come on an emergency basis for this funding.
Let me indicate that this disaster approach will cost $4.8 billion.
That is much less than disaster packages in 2000 and 2001, about a
third of what disaster packages were in those years. But it is
critically important. Why? Because in 2005 and 2006, we had a series of
natural disasters across this country that were not covered in any way.
The last disaster package that actually went through only applied to
hurricanes. Those who suffered from drought, from flooding, were
excluded. They were given no help.
Let me show the headlines from my State from last year: ``North
Dakota Anthrax Outbreak Grows''; ``Rain Halts Harvest''; ``North Dakota
Receives Major Disaster Declaration''; ``Heavy Rain Leads to Crop
Diseases''; ``Beet Crop Could Be Smallest In 10 Years''; ``Crops, Hay
Lost to Flooding''; ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding, Disease''.
These are only a handful of the headlines from that year. Here is a
picture of a farm. Last year I flew over southeastern North Dakota, and
it looked like a giant lake because farm after farm looked like this--
water from one horizon to the other. In the southeastern part of North
Dakota, there was massive flooding. A million acres were prevented from
even being planted. Hundreds of thousands of additional acres were
ultimately drowned out. In other words, they could plant, they did
plant, and then the crops were drowned out.
This was a devastating year for thousands of farm families. I had a
young farmer, one of the best in our State, come to a farm meeting I
held. He told me: Senator, unless something happens, a lot of my
neighbors are going to be gone, because we have had such an
extraordinarily unusual weather cycle in North Dakota.
That young man told me he has not had a normal crop in 6 years. He is
not alone. I don't know whether it is global climate change or this is
some very unusual weather pattern, but something is happening in my
State, something that is dramatic and unusual and devastating to
thousands of agricultural producers. We have a lake in North Dakota
called Devil's Lake. Devil's Lake has risen 26 feet in the last 8
years. Devil's Lake is three times the size of the District of
Columbia, and that lake
[[Page S11142]]
has risen 26 feet in the last 8 years. I don't know how one would
describe this, but it is outside any experience I have had to have a
giant lake rise 26 feet.
Three years ago in a small town in eastern North Dakota, we had 18.5
inches of rain in a 24-hour period, in a place that only receives that
amount of moisture in a year. Something extraordinary is happening. The
question is, will there be any Federal response or are we going to say,
Tough luck, you are on your own, you are out?
Irony of ironies, after the massive flooding of last year, after the
extended flooding in eastern North Dakota of the last 7 or 8 years,
this year drought struck, the third worst drought, according to
scientists, in our country's history. That is what happened this year.
And so instead of headlines about flooding, this is the headline:
``Dakotas `epicenter' of a drought-stricken nation.'' This is a report
from the Grand Forks Herald, one of the major newspapers of our State;
in fact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper for covering the disastrous
flooding of 1997, which many will recall, when we had the spectacle of
a fireman chest deep in water fighting a fire. The 1997 flood was the
worst flood in 500 years in eastern North Dakota. And now that
newspaper is reporting on the ``epicenter of a drought-stricken
nation.''
They say here more than 60 percent of the United States is in
drought. And we can see the epicenter is in South Dakota. But we are by
no means alone because right down the center of the country, right down
the heartland of America, is terrible drought this year, the third
worst drought in our history.
``Experts say dry spell third worst on record.'' The only worse
droughts were the horrendous droughts of the 1930s, which we refer to
now as the Dust Bowl, and the extended drought of the 1950s. Some who
are listening may ask, why haven't we heard about this? Why hasn't this
been on the national news?
I think we all know why. Go back to 2005 and 2006. The disasters that
were in the news were Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. That is what was in
the news. And we have responded to those disasters. We have not
responded to this disaster because, frankly, it has gotten very little
attention.
This will be the last opportunity for the Senate to act on this
important issue. Producers across the country can look to this vote
today and be able to determine whether the prospects are hopeful. If we
get close to the 60 votes or hopefully achieve a 60-vote hurdle, then
the possibility of disaster assistance next year is brightened. If we
do not come close, then tens of thousands of farm families are going to
be at their bankers in the coming weeks, and they are going to be given
the grim news that they are done; they are finished; they will not be
able to continue.
For over a year I, along with many Senate colleagues from both sides
of the aisle, have been coming to the floor of the Senate seeking to
pass disaster assistance for our farmers. Today I come with a bill
cosponsored by 27 of my colleagues and myself. That makes 28 of us. On
a thoroughly bipartisan basis, we have joined to urge our colleagues to
consider disaster assistance. Last spring, as part of the hurricane
supplemental, the Senate approved an agricultural disaster package for
the 2005 crop year. That measure was later dropped in conference due to
opposition from the administration and House leadership. The amendment
I am offering today is similar to the bipartisan disaster relief
legislation I introduced on September 28 of 2006.
The need for this amendment is compelling. I think my previous
remarks made clear why it is so important in my State. It is not just
my State. It is North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, South Dakota,
Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado. There are many States
that have been affected. In my State, in July I went on a drought tour
with my colleague Senator Dorgan and our Congressman. This is my home
county. This is a cornfield in July. You have heard the old saw that
corn should be knee high by the Fourth of July. You can see there is
almost nothing coming up. It is a moonscape. This is what southern
North Dakota looked like this year, absolutely devastated.
I even went to a farm where they had irrigated corn. The farmer took
me out and we started peeling the ears. And on irrigated corn, the
kernels hadn't filled. Why? Because in one day, it was 112 degrees in
my hometown. I am not talking about the heat index; I am talking about
the actual temperature--in one day, 112 degrees.
When I say North Dakota is not alone, this is from the Drought
Monitor from July 25 of this year. The yellow areas are termed
abnormally dry; the tan areas are moderate drought; the darker tan,
severe drought; the red is extreme drought; the dark brown is
exceptional drought. You can see that we have had drought throughout
the heartland of America--as I have indicated, the third worst drought
in our Nation's history.
Others are communicating with us, telling us of the urgent need for
this assistance. We received a letter from 32 of the major farm
organizations in America saying pass this disaster assistance. Let me
read you the letter:
We write to respectfully urge you to support agricultural
disaster assistance for the 2005 and 2006 production years.
While many of us are hopeful that even more can be done to
provide disaster-related assistance, we believe the
bipartisan Conrad amendment, and other such amendments that
would make disaster assistance even more inclusive, should be
approved by Congress this year.
As you may know, a large coalition has been seeking
disaster assistance for more than a year. The coalition is so
large and united because last year 88 percent of U.S.
counties were declared disaster areas by USDA. This year,
more than 66 percent have received that same designation.
With wide support earlier this year, the Senate approved a
disaster assistance package. Unfortunately, the provision was
changed in conference and the final language only assisted
rural residents who were victims of hurricanes, not those who
were victims of other natural disasters, such as drought and
flooding. While many of us believe that even more needs to be
done--and would be supportive of additional assistance--we
nevertheless want to ensure that the Conrad amendment is
approved.
Quite simply, a disaster is a disaster. We urge you to
support the Conrad disaster amendment and oppose a budget
point of order against the amendment. Congress should do all
they can to provide victims of natural disaster with the
assistance that they need and deserve this year.
My amendment incorporates many of the provisions already approved by
the Senate. But I have made several modifications to address the
objections raised by the administration. The economic assistance
provisions to help program crop and dairy producers offset rising
energy costs in 2005 have been dramatically reduced. Payments will only
be made to producers who can demonstrate they suffered reduced income
in 2005 compared with 2004, and the provision requires that those who
wish to receive these direct payments forego the crop disaster payments
the amendment makes available for 2005 and 2006.
The administration has stated that we need to wait until harvest is
concluded. The harvest is over for 2006 and the losses are real and
significant throughout many parts of the country. Crop and livestock
production loss provisions contained in the original legislation are
retained and will apply for both 2005 and 2006.
For those who say you don't have to have a loss to get assistance--
wrong. Nobody gets a dime who has not suffered a material loss. In
fact, crop producers must have a loss of at least 35 percent before
they get a thing. Let me repeat that. Crop producers will have to have
a loss of at least 35 percent before any of these provisions take
effect for them.
The livestock compensation program will only be made to producers
whose operations are in counties designated as disaster areas by the
Secretary and who can demonstrate that they suffered a material loss.
The provision also contains modest funding for conservation programs to
help restore and rehabilitate drought and wildlife losses on grazing
lands, and the provision assists small agriculturally dependent
businesses that have been dramatically hurt as a result of these
natural disasters.
Because of the modifications, the cost of providing disaster
assistance for 2005 and 2006 has been substantially reduced, from $6.7
billion in previous provisions to about $4.8 billion in this amendment.
Some have suggested that this amendment will result in farmers becoming
more than whole and that crop insurance is adequate to address the
losses our producers have sustained during the last 2 years.
[[Page S11143]]
Nothing in this debate has disturbed me more than people making that
argument because it is apparent that they simply don't know how crop
insurance works. They simply don't understand the formula that applies.
I wanted to provide a specific example to show my colleagues what is
going to happen to a typical farmer under the provisions of this
legislation. In North Dakota, the average wheat yield is 34 bushels to
the acre. The average harvest price is $4.57 a bushel. So per acre, a
farmer could have expected, in a normal year, to get $157.21 an acre.
Now, this year, if they would have a 50-percent loss, their market
income would be reduced to $78.60. With their insurance indemnity, if
they bought coverage at one of the most generous levels--the 75 percent
level--they would get a $27 insurance payment. Under my legislation,
they would get an additional $7, for a total of $113, compared to what
they could have expected in a normal year of $157. They are losing
$44.21 per acre in a normal year. They are still down 28 percent, even
with this disaster package. For those who suffer a 75-percent loss--let
me say I have many in my State who suffered a 75-percent loss--they
would get $39.30 from the market. They would get an insurance payment
of $54.18.
Under this legislation, they would get an additional $19.50, for a
total of about $113--still losing $44 an acre, still at a loss of
almost 30 percent.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wonder if we can set a timeframe on
speaking. Would it be possible for us to ask unanimous consent that
after the Senator completes his statement, the other Senator from North
Dakota be recognized and then I be recognized?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we already have a unanimous consent
agreement.
Mr. GREGG. I am talking about time.
Mr. CONRAD. We have an order. As I understand it, the order is to be
my opening statement, followed by Senator Dorgan for what time he will
consume, followed by Senator Landrieu for 10 minutes. Is that not
correct, I ask the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. So we have a unanimous consent agreement in place. I
think we should follow that. In terms of time, I have maybe 5 minutes
left in this opening statement and Senator Dorgan needs probably 20
minutes and then Senator Landrieu is scheduled for 10, if that is of
assistance to the Senator. That would indicate that we have about 40
minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Of course, we usually go back and forth in a debate of
this nature. But since that is the order, that is fine.
I ask unanimous consent that after the Landrieu statement, I be
recognized for an equal amount of time consumed by the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, again, I want to indicate the facts. For
those who have said crop insurance is the answer, crop insurance will
keep these people from dramatic losses--wrong. That is not true. This
bill will not prevent farmers from dramatic losses. If they have had a
50-percent loss, even with this legislation, they are going to lose
nearly 30 percent. If they have had a 75-percent loss, even with this
legislation, even with crop insurance, even with buying up to the level
that is the most frequent level that farmers buy, they will have a loss
of nearly 30 percent.
This program is not going to make farmers rich or even make them
whole. But it will make the difference for thousands of farm families
who otherwise may be forced off the land. Farmers and ranchers need
assistance for the 2005 and 2006 natural disaster losses, and they need
it now. If these emergencies are not dealt with, tens of thousands of
farm families and Main Street businesses will suffer, many irreparably.
I have had farm meeting after farm meeting all across my State.
Farmers and their families have told me that if assistance is not
forthcoming, this will be their last year. I am not talking about a
few, I am talking about thousands in my State. As I have indicated,
North Dakota, unfortunately, is not alone. This is a drought that has
been devastating to the heartland of America. That is why there are 28
sponsors of this legislation on a fully bipartisan basis.
Let me conclude by saying that some have said--I know we will hear
this from the chairman of the Budget Committee--this is a budget
buster. Now, he knows--and everyone who follows the budget process
knows--we do not budget for natural disasters. There is no line item in
the budget for natural disasters--none. Natural disasters are handled
on an emergency basis. That is what we are seeking--emergency funding
outside of the budget because there is no budget for natural
disasters--none, zero. If there is going to be any assistance, it is
going to have to come as it typically has, by an emergency declaration.
To uphold an emergency designation requires a supermajority vote in
the Senate. It requires at least 60 percent to support that designation
of emergency. So those who say it is a budget buster--wrong. There is
no budget line item for natural disasters--none. The only way there is
support for natural disasters is through an emergency declaration over
and above the rest of the budget. Why? Because decisions have been made
in the past that you cannot predict disasters by their nature. You
cannot say a drought is going to happen or a hurricane or a flood is
going to happen. Those are acts of God. They are acts that are
unpredictable and, therefore, are not budgeted for. Perhaps they should
be. Perhaps we should at least make an estimate, based on previous
experience, of what natural disasters cost. But it is not done. So if
there is going to be any assistance forthcoming for the tens of
thousands of people who have been hurt, this is the chance this year to
send a signal of help, a signal of hope, a signal that we will stand
with these farm and ranch families and help them in their time of need.
Amendment No. 5205
Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I send my amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an
amendment numbered 5205.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, my colleague Senator Conrad
has described this amendment very well. I appreciate his leadership, as
do other Members of the Senate.
For those of us who care about the future of family farming, this is
a very important issue for us. I am pleased to be here today to be a
cosponsor of this amendment to provide disaster aid to farmers.
Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys in the 1930s in one of their songs
had a refrain that I have often used on the floor of the Senate: The
little bee sucks the blossoms and the big bee gets the honey; the
little guy picks the cotton and the big guy gets the money.
It hasn't changed much over 70 or 80 years. Somehow the big interests
always have their day in the Congress. It wasn't too many months ago
that they had their day. There was a little provision tucked in a bill
that passed the Congress that said to the largest corporations in
America: When you repatriate the income you have earned from abroad, we
will give you a big deal. You get to pay an income tax rate of 5\1/4\
percent. I think that was worth about a $100 billion tax cut to the
biggest economic interests in this country.
It was done without a lot of debate. There is plenty of money to give
a $100 billion tax cut to the big interests, but now it is time to talk
about working families, family farmers, small producers.
The big interests get their day. Now we are talking about the people
who shower after work rather than before work. We are talking about the
people
[[Page S11144]]
who go out and work all day. They grease combines. They plow the
fields. They milk cows. They do chores. Then, at the end of the day,
they take a shower and clean up because they worked hard all day. They
and their families live under a yard light hoping they are going to be
able to make a living. Often they plant a seed and hope it grows. They
wonder whether they are going to have disease that will destroy their
crop. Perhaps hail will destroy their crop. Maybe it will rain too
much, or maybe it won't rain at all. Maybe if they get a crop, avoiding
all those diseases and natural disasters, including weather disasters,
maybe if they get a crop and they haul it to the elevator, it is
worthless because that price has collapsed.
Yet that family living on the farm takes all of those risks by
itself, and sometimes it doesn't work out for them.
This country for decades--for decades--has always said to family
farmers who live out there alone in the country: When things happen
that are tough for you--natural disasters, collapse in prices--we want
to help you; we want to offer you a helping hand. We have always said
that in the form of disaster aid.
It used to be that the disaster aid came in the regular farm bill
because we had a disaster title in that bill. That has been changed. So
now each year we have to come and plead for disaster help when a
disaster occurs that hurts families living out on the farms in this
country.
What has happened this year? Here is a satellite description of what
happened in our country. This is July, I believe, of this year. The red
in this satellite photo shows the drought. The red shows the destroyed
forage. One can see the epicenter of this drought is right up in here,
but the drought occurs in a wide area of this country. Look at the
epicenter of this drought.
Let me read something that comes from a rancher right up here, right
in the epicenter of the drought. He says in a letter dated July 12:
The grass is so dry that it breaks off when the cows walk
on it. The cricks and dams, they're all dried up. We're going
to have to sell some of the cows pretty soon so we can try to
save the rest of them. If you can do anything to help us out,
we would really appreciate it.
``If you can do anything to help us out, we would really appreciate
it.'' Did anybody get an appreciative note from those who were saved
$103 billion by getting a 5\1/4\-percent income tax break? Did anybody
get a note of thanks? Did anybody else get to pay a 5\1/4\ income tax
rate? Nobody in America gets to do that. But the biggest economic
interests got to do that last year because this Congress was generous:
Let me give you a big tax cut of $103 billion. Now we are talking about
a few billion dollars that would reach out and help families--yes, the
small producers--reach out and help families over troubled times. That
is what this is about.
Let me describe a little of the history of this situation. Three
times the Senate Appropriations Committee on which I serve has approved
amendments to provide disaster assistance. Three times I have offered
those amendments, and three times they have been accepted. Last
December, 1 year ago, during the conference committee on the fiscal
year 2006 Defense appropriations bill, I offered a disaster amendment.
The Senate conferees--both sides, Republicans and Democrats--agreed to
it and accepted it. The House conferees, at the request of President
Bush, objected to it because President Bush said he would veto the bill
if it was part of the bill.
In June of this year again, the full Senate approved an amendment
that was on the Katrina-Iraq supplemental bill, which I included in the
Appropriations Committee. Let me mention that in both cases, my
colleague Senator Conrad played quite a significant role in helping to
draft the amendment. He serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee, and
I serve on the Appropriations Committee. We used the Appropriations
Committee as the mechanism by which we have tried to get this done.
Three times the Appropriations Committee in the Senate has passed
amendments that I have offered to provide disaster relief. The first
two occasions were occasions in which the White House objected. The
President actually said, and his advisers said, they would recommend
that he veto legislation that would provide disaster help for family
farmers.
In June of this year, I attached the other disaster package. It is
the one Senator Conrad and a large group of us--Republicans and
Democrats--put together. That is what is on the floor of the Senate
right now, to be amended by the new disaster package my colleague
Senator Conrad offers this afternoon, which I fully support.
So this is not a new subject. No one should come to the floor of the
Senate surprised. We have dealt with this subject before. The Senate
has approved it before by a fairly significant margin. We have been
blocked in two conferences with the House of Representatives because
the White House decided to block that help.
Let me describe a couple of pieces of history about drought. It is
not a new thing to have a weather disaster wipe out family farmers
across this country. One can see the epicenter up in the northern Great
Plains, but one can see the destroyed forage in a wide band in the
heartland of our country.
Some while ago, we saw the tracking and the description and the
physical damage of Hurricane Katrina. It occurred right down here in
the gulf. It hit this land with devastating force, unbelievable force,
and it destroyed a lot of things. Our hearts were broken as we watched
what happened in the gulf.
Part of what the hurricane destroyed was the crops that family
farmers had down in these fields. They got washed away and destroyed
completely. The Congress passed legislation that said to those farmers:
You lost your crops due to a weather-related disaster, and here is some
disaster aid. The Congress said to these farmers: You lost your crops
due to weather, we are going to help you.
These farmers have lost their crops due to weather. They are just in
a different part of the country. No, it is not a hurricane, it is a
drought. This had a name; this didn't. Is there a difference? These
farmers write to us and ask: What is the difference? We had a weather-
related disaster that wiped out everything we had--all the feed, all
the crops. We had to sell our cows because if you have a cow and you
have no feed, that cow is going to market. We lost everything, they
say.
How is it you help farmers in one part of the country who suffered an
entire loss of their crops due to a hurricane and then turn a blind eye
to farmers in other parts of the country who lost their crops due to
drought and other weather-related disasters? How do you justify that,
Congress?
The answer is there is no justification for that. When we decide we
are going to help--and we should, and I have always supported that,
during tough times we are going to help family farmers--then we must
reach out to all the farmers in this country who suffer these
devastating losses.
I am not interested in sending financial help to farmers who didn't
have these losses. They are just fine. That is not what we are here
about today. Today we are about the issue of trying to reach out a
helping hand to those farmers who suffered a weather-related disaster
and suffered losses.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt went out in the country during disasters,
and he actually had a tough time traveling. He traveled by train. He
showed up in my part of the country on a drought tour. Then he showed
up in Huron, SD, on a drought tour. Let me read what the President
said. The reason I say this is we asked the President to come out and
do a drought tour this past year, or one of his underlings to come out
and do a drought tour. In 1936, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a drought
tour. He stopped in Huron, SD, and here is what he said:
No city in agriculture country can exist unless the farms
are prosperous. We have to cooperate with one another rather
than buck one another. I have come out here to find you with
your chins up looking toward the future with courage and
hope, and I'm grateful to you for the attitudes you are
taking.
He was on a drought tour speaking from a platform on the back of a
train.
He was also in Devils Lake, ND, August 7, 1934. Let me tell my
colleagues what he said about a drought tour, this President who took a
train around the country. He said:
I cannot honestly say my heart is happy today because I
have seen with my own eyes
[[Page S11145]]
some of the things I have been hearing and reading about a
year or more.
A growing drought that was eating the crops and destroying the crops.
He said:
But when you come to the water problems up here, you are up
against two things. In the first place, you're up against the
forces of nature. The second, you're up against the fact that
man, in its present stage of development, cannot definitely
control those forces.
The fact is, the President went on a drought tour and said: We want
to help family farmers. It is not much different than what we say
today. This is important.
Let me show a photograph of a North Dakota family farmer. He allowed
me to show this photograph on the floor of the Senate. This is a
picture of one of the ranchers, these ranchers who, in many cases, had
to sell their entire herds or parts of their herds because they had
nothing to feed their cows. As I said before, if you have cows and you
don't have feed, those cows are going to go to market and be sold. That
is what has happened.
This is Frank Barnick. Frank and his wife and son raise cattle in
Glen Ullin, ND. In this picture, he is walking in a crick bed that
normally would provide water for his cattle. As one can see, it looks
more like the surface of the Moon. There is no grass there, no water
there. Frank says:
It's the worst drought I've ever seen. You do a lot of
praying wondering how you're going to get through it.
One of the issues about getting through these tough times is the
issue of what is Congress prepared to do. What is the better instinct
of those who serve here? I have served in Congress for some long while,
and I have always been proud of being willing to vote for emergency
legislation to help people in need. It doesn't matter where it is for
me. If it is a hurricane that hits the South in the gulf coast, a
hurricane that hits Florida, I want to be there with my vote to say
this country wants to say to you, victims of hurricanes, weather-
related disasters: You are not alone. You are not alone because this
country cares about you. I have always been proud to cast those votes.
I never had a second thought about them, and I never wondered very much
whether we should. It is part of the better nature of this country to
reach out to people and say: You are not alone and we want to help you.
I think of all of the things that we have done in this Congress in
the last couple of years to help people. We go all around the world. It
is an enormously generous country. We do a lot of things to help with
everything virtually everywhere, and that is very important and I am
supportive of that. But I think it is very important as well that we
help people here at home and that we say to people here at home with
respect to problems here at home that they are important to us, that
what is happening in America is important to us as well.
Last year, we had people in the northern part of our State who woke
up one morning to find that they had a million acres, a million acres
of their ground--these are family farmers who had planted in grains--
washed away and gone and could not be replanted. We had another million
acres that could never be planted. We are talking about 2 million acres
of ground because of torrential rains that were destroyed with respect
to their productivity to raise a crop, and those family farmers sitting
out there with that 2 million acres were left to wonder: What next?
Will I be able to continue to farm? Will I and my spouse and my son and
daughter be able to continue to own this farm?
Well, we have had torrential rains and flooding that devastated a
region of our State, and then we have the epicenter of the drought, as
I have just shown, that is almost unbelievable.
My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I and a Congressman took several
drought tours, and I have never seen anything like it. When you lose
your crop or you lose your pasture and you have no capability to feed
cattle or to plant a seed or harvest a crop, is it exactly the same
circumstance which that family faces as the circumstance faced by a
family farmer in the gulf region in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana? Of
course it is. It is exactly the same.
So my colleague today brings a piece of legislation to the floor that
we have worked on and tried to perfect that does, as best we can, say
to family farmers: Here is a package of disaster relief. No, it is not
going to make anybody whole. This is not a massive package that
everybody is going to be happy with, but at least it says to those
farmers: We want you to have a chance to continue farming.
On a couple of occasions I have described the value of this, the
cultural value of even caring about farming. Some people say: So what.
Let the market system work. If a family is too small to make it and it
floods and they can't get a crop and they are broke, tough luck. So
long. See you in town someplace. Somebody else will farm that land.
We, over some 5, 8, 10 decades in this country have known better than
to take that attitude. Rodney Nelson, a writer from my State and a
rancher from out near Almont, ND, wrote a wonderful piece about
farming. And he asked a question which is important for people in this
Chamber to ask. He asked the question: What is it worth? What is it
worth, he asks. What is it worth for a kid to know how to weld a seam?
What is it worth for a kid to know how to plow a field? What is it
worth for a kid to know how to hang a door? What is it worth for a kid
to know how to grease a combine? What is it worth for a kid to know how
to change the oil in a tractor? What is it worth for a kid to know how
to teach a calf to suck milk out of a pail? What is it worth for a kid
to know how to brand? What is all that worth? What is all that worth?
There is only one place in America where they teach all that. Read
the history of the Second World War and see all those young men that
marked off America's farms that could fix anything, drive anything, do
anything all around the world. There is only one place they teach that,
and that university exists on America's family farms. So what is that
worth to this country? Does it matter that families live under the yard
lights out in the country on our farms? Does it matter? It does to me.
It does to me.
No, they are not big interests. I understand that. They are small
producers. But they deserve a voice in this Chamber. They deserve their
day. They deserve the debate about their value and their worth to this
country. I guarantee you the big interests get their day virtually
every day in these Chambers.
This is a day to talk about what it is worth. What is it worth for
this country to say to family farmers: You matter and you are not alone
when trouble strikes. What is that worth for this country?
That is why we offer this amendment today. It is important. In March
and April as we prepare for a new year in the Congress and work on
appropriations bills and so on, there will be farmers who will learn
whether they are able to plant another crop or whether they are going
to be kicked off the land. They and their families will learn: Does
their dream continue or is it over? And it will depend in large part on
what this Congress does on this issue. We should not consider this some
sort of idle exercise.
It is true that amending this Agriculture appropriations bill is not
going to apparently produce this product by the end of this week. But
this Agriculture appropriations bill, one way or another, is going to
end up in some kind of an omnibus bill in February or early March. I am
an appropriator. I am on the committee. And we are going to do some
kind of an Omnibus appropriations bill, and I will do everything I can
to see that this kind of disaster package is included in it. Putting it
in this Agriculture appropriations bill today is the first step in
trying to insist that this, too, be a priority for our country.
Let me say to my colleague, Senator Conrad, I appreciate working with
him on this and many others, and underscore the point that he has made
repeatedly: This is not partisan, it is bipartisan. We have aggressive,
strong Republican supporters and Democratic supporters to this
provision. It is important to understand that. This is about our
priorities. It is always about priorities, what is important and what
is not important. And so I congratulate and thank the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member, Senator Bennett, Senator Kohl, and
[[Page S11146]]
thank all of those who have joined in a very substantial bipartisan
amendment to once again say to this country and this Chamber that
family farmers matter to this country. And when they are in trouble, we
need to reach out to say to them: You are not alone. The best, most
effective way to do that today is to pass this amendment, and I hope we
will do that by the end of this day.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, who
has been such a leader on this issue for our farm and ranch families
and who has repeatedly offered disaster legislation on the
appropriations bill and has repeatedly passed it on the appropriations
bill. In fact, there is, in the underlying appropriations bill of the
Agriculture Committee, disaster assistance. The problem is, though, it
only covers 1 year, and we now know we have had 2 years of remarkable
disasters.
While we are waiting for Senator Gregg to come to the Senate floor, I
thought I would just take a moment to read from some of the letters
from farmers in my State, the things that they have written me. This is
a letter from last year, the flood year. This is what the man wrote:
The rains began in earnest the last days of May 2005. Our
crops were in the ground so the majority of the input costs
for the crops were already realized. We received 25 inches of
rain in 33 days. The attached pictures show the result. In
our local town residents were going up and down the streets
in boats.
We did our very best to cope with expenses but with the
increased energy prices and the loss of crop income, we and
all the other producers in our area lost the battle. Our farm
had financial reversals in the amount of $110,000. We carry
crop insurance but this program does not begin to cover our
risks.
In speaking with loan officers at 2 of our local banks I
was told that First National Bank expects to restructure 60
percent of their ag loans. State Bank estimates restructuring
75 to 80 percent of their loans. This is serious business in
agriculture.
He closed by saying:
Please support disaster relief currently working its way
through Congress. If you do, you will literally be the
difference between me being able to continue to produce food
and fiber for this great Nation and not being able to
continue this production.
A second letter from a man this year:
I farm and ranch with my father and mother and this is the
second year in a row that our neighbors and ourselves have
endured natural disasters. When I say disaster, I mean 25
inches of rain in the month of June alone, and complete crop
loss. I farm approximately 630 acres myself, and I did not
harvest a single kernel of grain from any of it. The rivers
started to run the 3rd of July and pushed across 80 acres of
my alfalfa field, killing approximately 40 acres.
Enclosed are pictures to give you an idea of what the
conditions were like. The pictures look as though they could
have been taken after Katrina, but we know otherwise. Those
people need assistance for a complete loss. What we had here
was not as catastrophic on a widespread manner, but
destruction of crops was there. Please assist us. Thank you
for your time and any assistance you might provide.
This is another letter. This letter is from this year. And, remember,
last year we had this incredible flooding, and now this incredible
drought.
We are writing to ask for your help. We were burnt out this
week by a prairie fire on the Standing Rock Reservation. We
lost 5,000 acres of pasture. We don't know how we are going
to feed our cattle this winter, as we have lost our winter
grazing.
This, on top of the drought here in south central North
Dakota, we don't know how much more we can contend with. We
planted wheat, but have nothing to harvest this year due to a
lack of rain, and crop insurance will barely pay our input
costs, so there will not be any income from a crop this year.
As for buying feed for cattle, hay will cost approximately
$100 per ton with trucking. We will also need to purchase
supplement and corn. This is in addition to the high cost of
electricity, fuel, and propane.
We don't know how much more we can endure. We don't know
why our country helps other nations, but not our own people,
and especially the farmers. Other nations give nothing back.
Selling the cattle is not the answer either. As a result,
there will be no income. Please let us know if there is any
assistance for us.
And another letter. This is from the head of a bank, the Commercial
Bank of Mott, ND, near where Senator Dorgan grew up:
Attached are six agricultural operations associated with
the Commercial Bank of Mott. Five of these businesses are
located in Hettinger County and one in Grant County. Over the
course of the last two weeks, these producers have come to
the bank to discuss their financial position. The projections
attached have been assembled to reflect accurately each
producer's current standard.
As you review each and every projection, it is apparent that all of
these producers were dramatically affected by the drought of 2006. At
this writing, without any government intervention or disaster aid, it
appears that three of these producers will be going out of business.
They simply cannot absorb losses of this magnitude.
The last spreadsheet attached shows that the six producers
have collectively lost $875,000 in this year.
Six producers losing $875,000.
We are here today because you have asked us to come. We now
ask you to support agriculture and to help provide these
producers with a fair and equitable disaster program. I might
add, the program is needed now.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague would yield for a
question.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. In the context of how much money is required to try to be
helpful to family farmers as they struggle through this weather-related
disaster period to determine whether they are actually going to be able
to continue farming, I noticed a story the other day--I believe it was
yesterday--which stated that we now have 100,000 private contractors we
are paying in the country of Iraq. We are passing pieces of legislation
here in the Congress, hundreds of billions of dollars of supplementals,
emergency supplementals. My understanding is that we are going to be
presented with another emergency supplemental for $120 billion.
In terms of what one spends, at least with respect to helping farmers
who have gotten hit with tough times, you know what you are doing and
where it is going to go.
The point I am making is, isn't it the case that in the context of
all of this, we are not talking about a great deal of money, but in
this case we are talking about a lot of people who will be directly
helped, and it likely will determine whether many of them will be able
to continue working on the family farm and operating the family farm? I
understand this is an expenditure of money, but to the extent that we
have emergencies bantered around here virtually all the time, it really
is an emergency when a weather-related disaster hits--really hits--and
devastates a region. That really is an emergency, to determine whether
you are going to be able, or willing, to help families in deep
trouble. Isn't it the case that this is not a substantial amount of
money, given all the other things we have decided to very quickly say
yes to?
Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague, this equals about 10 days of
expenditure in Iraq, based on what we are told the supplemental will be
and what is already in the budget. So this is modest compared to
previous disaster packages. It will not make farmers whole.
As I have indicated in the examples I have provided, farmers who had
a 50-percent loss will still have a 28-percent loss in economic terms,
even with this package. A farmer who has lost 75 percent, even with
this package and with aggressive crop insurance, will still have a 28-
percent loss as well.
This is a defining moment for thousands of people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation
relative to time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 60
minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
do feel it is uniquely ironic that the first amendment offered--and
this was the first amendment offered after the election--would increase
the debt of this country by $4.9 billion; that it would abandon the
budget and essentially say we should spend additional funds and pass
those costs on to our children.
Throughout the election cycle, I think I heard a great deal about
fiscal responsibility. I especially heard it from the other side of the
aisle, about how we as Republicans have been profligate allegedly.
Maybe those were just words, because the first formal action taken by
the other side, which is now moving into the majority position, is to
spend $4.9 billion which we do not have on an emergency which is
declared in the agricultural community, and which funds are, in many
instances, not even emergency related if
[[Page S11147]]
you were to define a traditional emergency.
It is hard to understand how we can want to increase the debt on our
children in this manner. Clearly I think it is inconsistent with what
the American people asked for when they voted in the last election. I
think they asked that we have a reasonable approach to fiscal policy,
that we start spending within our means, and that we stop passing on to
our kids the costs of today. This is a cost of today.
This amendment should have been handled in the regular order of the
appropriations process. It should have been handled by being offset or
by a reduction in expenses somewhere else, or it should have been
handled within the spending cap which was proposed for the agricultural
community. It is not. It is an emergency which is a designation placed
on it basically for the purposes of avoiding the obligations of the
budget.
Let me ask, is it really an emergency that we spend $24 million
provided solely to the sugar beet producers rather than giving them the
assistance through the crop disaster program? That is an earmark, that
is not an emergency.
Is it really an emergency to spend $3 million specifically providing
sugarcane growers in Hawaii nondisaster assistance? It is simply an
earmark. A $95 million payment to dairy producers for losses? Earmark.
What about $6 million provided for a flood area in North Dakota? An
earmark. Or $1 million for a land replacement and retention program? An
earmark. Or $10 million for the purposes of a watershed project in
another State? An earmark. These are not emergencies. This is simply an
attempt to get votes. That is the way it works around here. You get a
big chunk of money, you put an ``emergency'' title on it, and then you
run around and adjust the spending in that amount of money so you can
pass it and avoid the 60-vote point of order. Logrolling is the term
that historically has been applied to that. People don't remember that
term, but that is what it is historically.
The irony is, of course, the underlying bill already had $4 billion
of emergency money designated in it which should not have been
designated, but that money wasn't allocated in a way that the sponsors
of this bill felt comfortable enough with to get the 60 votes, so they
took that money and cleared it with this money and basically added $4
billion to the debt.
When we say added to the debt, what we are saying basically is our
children are going to have to pay for it. Our children are going to
have to pay tomorrow for costs that are going to benefit a small group
of farmers today. That cost should have been borne by expenditures
being reduced today or expenditures being reallocated today. It should
not be borne by throwing it on the deficit and making our kids pay for
it.
There are some other things in this declaration of additional deficit
spending of $4.9 billion which are questionable. For example, dairy
farmers and certain crop programs can receive this payment for
production if they can show they had a loss in 2005 net farm income
compared to 2004. There is no requirement that loss be shown related to
anything that had to do with an emergency; it could be that they became
inefficient, ineffective, or simply didn't know what they were doing
and made mistakes. But they are going to get paid for not making as
much money in 2005 as they did in 2004. It has nothing to do with an
emergency. It is only if they can show they didn't do as well in 2005
as they did in 2004, they are going to get tax dollars.
There are a lot of businesses in this country today that did not do
as well in one year as they did in the next year. Are we to declare
that every one of those businesses should get emergency funds simply
because they had a difference between their income in one year from the
next year? The fact may be that the difference in income was because
2004 was a great year, as it happened to be, and 2005 wasn't a great
year. It was a good year, a very good year in many farm communities,
but the difference is now going to be picked up by the taxpayers. So
essentially there wasn't a lot of incentive to do better in 2005 than
2004. Essentially we are saying to those folks who worked harder and
were more productive and did have a better year in 2005 than 2004:
Sorry, your activity wasn't relevant. The person who didn't work as
hard as you, who wasn't as productive as you, maybe ran his farm more
poorly than you, we are going to pay him the difference in income from
1 year to the next. That is classic 1930s Government, I guess, if you
believe in that theory of governance, the theory that people should be
paid for doing a lousy job and not being productive.
This amendment in and of itself represents a 23-percent increase in 1
year in the subsidies for farm programs in this country; 23 percent.
That is a huge 1-year shot of expenditures. It is rather dramatic, to
reflect the fact it is in relationship to the emergency process when
there is no relationship; they are disjointed here. There is some, but
it is primarily disjointed.
The way this amendment is structured, the way this language is
structured, under the traditional crop insurance program a person is
supposed to buy crop insurance. Under this bill, if you do not buy crop
insurance you are still going to get paid. In fact, they are no longer
subject to the percentage cap, which is the traditional way. So you
could actually end up making more under this program, under these
proposals, with a crop loss than you would make if you had actually
brought your crops in on target.
It is inconsistent with marketplace economics, as is the concept that
you would get paid for having a bad year, the difference between a good
year and a very good year.
The contrast is pretty significant because what they have done is
reversed what has been a historical factor with our agriculture bills,
which is that you include in most of the agriculture disaster bills
that come through this body--in fact, all of them--that they have
included a percentage cap and a requirement to purchase crop insurance.
This bill rejects both of those concepts, which is sort of even a
bigger grab at the taxpayers' wallet.
This bill affronts the sensibilities of fiscal responsibility. I
mean, the idea that you would spend $4.9 billion outside the budget as
the first act of the Congress, after returning from an election when
the American people said get your fiscal house in order, is an affront
to the election process. It is like saying there was no election.
People didn't have anything to say in the last election about fiscal
responsibility; it was all about other subjects. I disagree with that.
This sets a very bad tone, in my opinion, for the next Congress. This
is truly the first act of the next Congress, whether we are going to
live within the budget for the fiscal year under which the next
Congress is going to function. Under this proposal, we are not only
going to not live within it, we are going to make a joke out of it. We
are going to spend $4.9 billion, much of it earmarked--not much of it
but a significant amount of it earmarked--much of it reorganized so it
is structured in a way that benefits folks who may not have had a
disaster at all and much of it structured in a way that rejects what
has been the historical approach toward farm disasters, which is it has
to have a relationship to a percentage cap and to production and to
purchasing of crop insurance.
It is terrible, fiscally. It is bad policy from a farm standpoint,
also. It is essentially an attempt to build a coalition of 60 votes,
which 60 votes will then represent a raid on the Treasury on behalf of
an interest group, an interest group which has compelling arguments but
which is still an interest group and is difficult to defend in the
context of fiscal responsibility.
That being the case, this proposal is subject to a point of order. If
the Senator from North Dakota is ready, I will make the point of order
now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to raise the
point of order at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, pursuant to the fiscal year 2006 budget
resolution, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation
of the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House
Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006,
[[Page S11148]]
I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes
of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays at the designated time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I now yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he
may desire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first, I compliment my colleagues from
North Dakota. They have described a very real problem in farm country.
Western Oklahoma and north central Oklahoma have been plagued by
drought. Much of the wheat crop could not be planted last year because
there was no soil moisture in which to plant it. The problem they are
describing is a very real problem. The emotional context in which they
put it is a very true indication of the plight of some of the farmers
from Oklahoma and throughout the country.
When you look at agriculture in our country, what we find is it is
basically undercapitalized. If the average farm was about 1,800 acres,
the average farmer could take 2 terrible crop years and still be OK,
still have his assets, still have the ability to come back and earn
again. We have great commodity prices right now. The problem is there
were no crops to take advantage of those great product prices.
The idea that we ought to be about helping our farmers is a correct
idea. I applaud both Senators from North Dakota for their persistence
in bringing up this issue. As a matter of fact, I think this issue is
so important to the real problems that are out there because I don't
see how we can leave here on Friday, which everyone is planning on
doing, and not address this issue.
There is a lot I disagree with in this bill. The Senators from North
Dakota know that. I have expressed it. I am going to outline some of
those.
If this election taught us anything, it is that the American
taxpayers want us to put good value with what we do.
A couple of facts: This bill can be paid for. It is not. This
amendment is not paid for. But it could be. As a matter of fact, I
would bet that after this election we have a consensus within the
Senate to pay for it. Let me give you some examples how we pay for it.
I know the Senator from North Dakota has another which I didn't think
of, but I know several on this side would probably agree it is a great
pay-for. There is $8.13 billion in unobligated balances in the
Agriculture Department right now. That money could be used to pay for
this, and then in the reappropriations process that we start in
February we could come back through, recognizing that we are using $4.8
billion of that money to pay for this.
One of my problems with the Agriculture appropriations bill that this
amendment is going to be attached to is there is $800 million worth of
earmarks, most of which come out of the very services the farmers are
dependent upon to grow a good crop. A lot of it comes out of ARS, the
very thing we shouldn't be taking money out of, but yet we have $758
million worth of earmarks that aren't necessarily a priority for our
country or the farm communities but are a priority in terms of the
political benefits that it gives the Members of this body and the
House.
This is a fine-print page of all the earmarks in this bill. Most of
the American public, when they look at it, 50 percent of these projects
they would have trouble stomaching saying this is a priority at this
time. There is no attempt to eliminate the earmarks to pay for this,
which would pay 20 percent of this Agriculture bill disaster amendment
we have before us.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one moment?
Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to.
Mr. CONRAD. I am very much in sympathy with the Senator on the notion
of paying for this. In fact, I spent much of the morning trying to
figure out a way I could offer a pay-for which I think the Senator and
I might agree with and I think most of the body would agree with. It
would more than pay for this. I have been advised by legal counsel that
if we offer a pay-for in the context of this bill and this amendment,
we would then be subject to rule XVI. Under rule XVI, any Senator can
raise it and the amendment would fall with no vote. So we are in a very
unfortunate circumstance. We can't offer a pay-for.
Let me be very direct about what the pay-for is which I would have
offered today if I weren't prevented by the rules from doing so. It
turns out the Interior Department failed in contracts with oil
companies to provide for royalties when oil prices went above a certain
amount. Oil prices are above that amount today. The loss to the
Treasury, I am told, is in the range of $11 billion. That would pay for
this twice over. Unortunately, we can't offer our proposal and the
Senator can't offer his without being subject to rule XVI. I wanted to
say that for the Record. I appreciate very much that the Senator knows
I wish to pay for this as well. We have a way to do a pay-for, but I am
precluded by the rules from offering it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I reclaim the floor.
Let me talk again about some of the problems that are behind the bill
as it is presently written. We are never going to have a crop insurance
program in this country that will ever work if we keep bailing people
out who fail to buy crop insurance. Granted, there is a change in this
bill from what it was. It was 35 percent or 40 percent available to
those who didn't buy crop insurance. Now we have cut it to 20. But we
are still sending a signal that you don't have to buy crop insurance,
because even if you do not, we are going to be there with the money.
That is exactly the wrong signal. If we want to have a crop insurance
program to work, we have to have the discipline to say if you choose
not to buy it and we had this available to you, then in fact you are
not going to get the benefit.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on that point without interfering
with the Senator's time?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will take this on my time.
The Senator makes a very good point. In previous disaster bills,
those that did not have crop insurance got 45 percent of the prevailing
price. Under this bill, we have dropped that dramatically to 20
percent. Why? The Senator asks a very good question. Frankly, the
overriding reason is there are certain crops for which crop insurance
doesn't work at all, largely specialty crops in this country for which
the crop insurance program badly needs reform. I think most of us from
farm country would agree on that. There are real problems with crop
insurance. Crop insurance for specialty crops was never written in a
way that makes any economic sense, or in many cases covers the crops at
all. That is why we still have a provision that gives some assistance
to those who do not have crop insurance.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor again, the point is
had we not given 45 percent before, many of these would have bought
crop insurance. The very fact that we are going to go out and give
money to people who had an opportunity to protect their losses and
chose not to, we are sending a signal that we are going to get less
participation in crop insurance, not more. What we want is a crop
insurance program that will work and which has the incentive so that
many farmers say, Uncle Sam isn't going to come; I have an opportunity
to protect myself and I am going to buy it. Does it cost me something?
Sure.
The second point I was going to make relates to the chart which the
Senator from North Dakota showed which showed the amount of losses.
What he didn't say is that farmers also had the opportunity to buy a
much higher level of coverage which they chose not to do. But it is out
there. Had they done this, their losses would have been far less than
they are today. Economically, they have to make a decision. I am not
against helping those who are in need today. But I think there are
things which could perfect the amendment which I hope the Senators from
North Dakota would consider. We have had two great production years in
this country where net farm income has been as high as it has been
except this last year. We are going to be calculating off a base of the
highest that we had. That is number one.
Number two, there is nothing in this that looks at net assets of a
farmer because farmers who in fact are capitalized to the degree that
they can take a
[[Page S11149]]
tough year--we are going to pay them, too. The American people have
kind of spoken in November. Use common sense. Give us value for our
dollar. The very well-to-do farmer who is very well capitalized we are
going to bail out as we are going to bail the guy who is not, and he is
the one who doesn't need bailing out.
What I want to see us at some point go to in the future with our farm
programs is how we increase the capital of the individual farmers where
they are capitalized to the level where they can in fact hit a bump in
the road and still make it; can in fact hit 20 bumps in the road, and
we know what that is. I have the studies. It is a minimum of 1,800
acres and the capital to supply the equipment to farm such 1,800 acres.
The other thing in this bill is the duplication of programs that are
already out there. That is $300 million to help small businesses who
supply the farm community. That is what the Small Business
Administration is all about. We are going to turn around and give
$80,000 to small businesses. We have a program for that. Yet we are
going to turn around and create another Government program that is
going to say you didn't have to be a good businessman if there is a
little bit of a dent in the crop year; all you have to do is come and
be bailed out, too, instead of taking a program that we need to make
better, that sends a signal to the farmers, saying we are going to help
you when you need help, but you have to be responsible in terms of crop
insurance. We will let the other branch of the Government that has
these areas covered be made available and we will help nurture the
staff there.
One other area that kind of drives me crazy with this amendment is we
are adding staff to the Department of Agriculture. They have 95,000
employees. Not all of those are in agricultural production. They have
several thousand contract employees, and we are going to add employees
to implement this.
I tell you that from my visits around Oklahoma, there are more than
enough people at FSA and all the different branches and all the
different organizations associated with the Department of Agriculture
to implement this now. We don't need to add people. What we need to do
is get the money to the people who need it. And we can do that. All we
have to do is have good management and good direction.
I abhor the fact that we steal money from ARS for earmarks to help us
politically but hurt the very people that we say we want to help with
this amendment.
I think it is also wrong to take money from AFS which deals with
bovine encephalitis and bird flu. We are taking money and time away
from that agency to pay for earmarks. That is wrong. We shouldn't be
doing that. If we are going to have earmarks, let us take it from some
place that is not going to undermine the very farmers we say we are
trying to help.
We have a ton of cattle in Oklahoma, and I know we do all through the
central Midwest and in the upper plains, that have been markedly harmed
by the drought.
We need to be careful with the precedent we set here. We are slowly
moving in a direction to make all production agriculture similar to
what we have done with crop insurance agriculture. I think we need to
have the patience to say how do we do this in a way that does not
create another expectation of bailing someone.
The Senator from New Hampshire was very correct when he talked about
what this bill is going to do in terms of busting the budget. I am
going to be voting to sustain the point of order because I don't think
we should be doing it that way.
I want to be very clear. That doesn't mean I think we should not be
doing something to help farmers. I also will say very insistently that
if this Congress goes home without addressing this issue on a
freestanding bill for agriculture assistance, I think we will have let
down the American people. I know we will have let down the American
farmer and rancher.
I think we ought to consider looking at the adjournment resolution
and mount an opposition to this if this issue is not addressed before
we go home. I think we can work behind the scenes to pay for this. I
think we can work behind the scenes to change it where we can build the
support for it, and I think we can work behind the scenes to give
something to the President that he can sign and start implementing the
month of December into January, and farmers will know whether they are
going to plant a corn crop in March or a wheat crop next fall if they
haven't been able to plant one this year.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. Certainly.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma, makes some
important points. He talks about the need to have patience. One of the
issues for all of us is we are about out of patience on this issue. The
fact is it has been almost a year and a half trying to move this the
third time--not just this but a different variation of this--trying to
find a way to help those producers who are hurting. Patience is a
virtue, but sometimes we run out of patience, and we are near that end.
With respect to the question of payment limits and so on, I agree
with the Senator. Senator Grassley from Iowa and I have coauthored
amendments--and we will again offer amendments on the floor of the
Senate--to establish payment limits in the farm bill. My colleague
Senator Conrad has been an active supporter of that. We don't have
disagreement on those kinds of issues. I think the crop insurance
program, while important, has never been sufficiently contracted to
reap prices and replace disasters when a real disaster strikes. That is
part of the issue here. These aren't just bad rains or high winds;
these are real disasters when you see the epicenter of a drought that
destroys all of the farmers. I am sympathetic. I understand what the
Senator from Oklahoma is saying. I hope he understands patience is not
inexhaustible when producers are wondering whether they and their
family are going to be able to continue. I am talking about a lot of
families who are struggling very hard.
Let me say finally the sentiments of the Senator from Oklahoma about
trying to help family farmers is very much, in sync with the sentiments
of Senator Conrad and others. We very much want this Congress to reach
out a helping hand to those farmers who risk losing everything if we
don't help them some, and say, You are not alone, we are going to help
you. That is what we are trying to do here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the overall point of all this is we can do
this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. The hard way is what
the American people expect us to do--and the hard way is paying for
this. The easy way is not to pay for it. The easy way is to walk out of
here this Friday having maybe passed your amendment or not. It is not
going to make any difference in terms of the farmers because it isn't
going anywhere. We have already been told that. The hard way is to make
the tough choices about the priority of the Government spending of this
country and say the farmers ought to be prioritized at this point in
time. We are going to do the hard work to make the cuts somewhere else
to pay for it.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a brief point?
Mr. COBURN. Let me make my point. I will yield in a minute.
What we are doing, if we pass this without offset, we are taking out
the good old politician credit card saying we don't have the guts to do
it the right way, we don't have the stamina to do it, we don't have the
courage to do it. By the way, grandchildren, here you go. Back in 2006,
we couldn't do the right thing, we didn't have the courage to do the
right thing, and we are charging it to you. And besides charging it to
you, we will charge the interest from the time now until you are 40
years of age, so you are paying 40 percent or 50 percent regular,
middle-income-America taxes because that is the only way we will get
out of this.
Three points, and then I am finished.
There are things that need to be changed in the bill that send the
wrong message, especially on crop insurance. We will never get crop
insurance fixed if we keep sending the message we are sending with this
amendment.
No. 2, there are other organizations within the Federal Government
designed to help small businesses. We ought to use them rather than
create another one.
[[Page S11150]]
The third point, we ought to pay for it. We as a Congress do not have
the courage to stand here and fight and say we are not going home until
we have taken care of this problem for the farm community in America
and done it right--not limiting payments but looking at payments as a
percentage of your net assets rather than having a fixed dollar amount.
We don't have the courage to do that for the American people.
That is what the American people rejected in this last election. They
want Congress to stand up and fight courageously for the values they
use every day in their homes and their jobs when they have to make
decisions. They have to decide on priorities. We will walk out. There
isn't going to be any aid for the farm community. Come back in
February. When we do it again, it probably isn't going to get paid
for--either the Agriculture bill, for $4 billion in the original
Agriculture bill, or this one probably won't get paid for, and we will
slip them a credit card and say: Timeout; we will not make the tough
choices; we did not have the courage to fight for your future.
By the way, the exit polls at the last election show that 57 percent
of Americans do not believe their kids will have it as good as we have
it today. If we keep doing this, they won't. It is our obligation to
start acting and doing what we say on the campaign trail. We are
interested in securing the future for the next generations of this
country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. I don't have disagreements about the issue of the pay-for
here, and I think my colleague has already described he has a provision
that would pay for this. There is a rule XVI against it if he puts it
in this bill. I suggest perhaps we do a unanimous consent on the pay-
for. If he doesn't, I know a politician who will easily pay for it. I
will do a unanimous consent to pay for it. It will be objected to,
regrettably.
These things ought to be paid for. The first time we suggest this is
when a family is in trouble on the farm. We have had hundreds of
billions of dollars come through here with hardly a blink, none of it
paid for. That ought to change. I am with the Senator from Oklahoma.
Let's try to change that.
The fact is, this does not have a pay-for, not because Senator Conrad
doesn't want it there or I don't want it there; it ought to be there.
We have the device by which this can be paid for. There is a rule
against it, but we ought to do a unanimous consent to describe the fact
that it will be objected to, but we want it paid for.
Mr. COBURN. I agree with the Senator. He knows my record. I have not
voted to not pay for anything in this body. I don't believe we borrow
the future of our children to take care of our present-day needs.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. CONRAD. On the question of paying for it, I have complete
agreement with the Senator from Oklahoma. I wish the rules permitted us
to offer an amendment to pay for it.
No. 1, on the question of requiring--that we have dropped the crop
insurance requirement, we did because it cost money. It is the scoring
rules around this place that don't make much sense to me. When we
submitted it to CBO, they said if you have a crop--I submitted it with
the crop insurance requirement in it, and they said if you do that, it
costs $40 million.
No. 2, there is a payment limit in this legislation. It is an $80,000
payment limit. There is a gross income test in this legislation.
We tried to address some of the things the Senator is concerned
about, and he is right about those things. We have tried to address it
with a payment limitation--$80,000--with a gross income test, which is
a little different from a net asset test, but it tries to get at the
same point the Senator is making.
I say to the Senator on the question of the small business economic
loss grants, the Senator cited the $300 million that was in the
previous legislation. We cut that to $100 million. We left it in there
for this reason. We have heard from crop sprayers all over the country,
at least the drought-stricken area. In the heartland of the country,
they have reported they have gone to the SBA. They told them they have
suffered such devastating losses, they are not eligible for SBA, they
are out. That is the reason the $100 million is left. It really is for
those who are most directly affected by a dramatic falloff in acreage.
This started with a company in North Dakota that called me. The acreage
they were spraying was reduced 80 percent this last year. Their losses
were staggering. If there is not something like this, they are out at
SBA. Then we started research in other States and found the same thing.
That is the reason for that.
I go back to the question of providing some assistance to those who
didn't buy crop insurance because I basically agree with the Senator's
point. We do have this fundamental problem of crop insurance not being
practical and not being available, in many cases, for the specialty
crop people. We did try to get at the point the Senator is making by
dramatically reducing what they get.
Under previous disaster bills, they would get 45 percent of
prevailing prices. In this disaster bill, we have dropped that to 20
percent. We didn't think it was fair to eliminate it given the fact we
have not crafted a crop insurance program--especially that the
specialty crop people could have available to them--that is
economically viable.
I thank the Senator very much for his courtesy.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from North Dakota for
their effort.
This bill coming to the floor, the underlying bill--not this
amendment--the emergency money could have been offset when it came
through the appropriation process, and it wasn't. It was just put in.
We don't want to make the hard choices. We don't want to pay for them.
That has to change in the future.
My hope is we will give some consideration because as things stand
and look now, we are not going to have an emergency bill with which the
agricultural community that has been so hurt by the drought this past
year and year and a half is going to have something to hang their hat
on come the first of the year. I look forward to working with the two
Senators from North Dakota to try to accomplish that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to respond to my
colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. The Senator
from South Dakota has been waiting patiently, but if he would not mind
if I took 2 minutes to respond to Senator Gregg.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget said: Look, this doesn't
just respond to natural disasters; this is a series of earmarks. I say
to my colleague, there are no earmarks here. There is nothing
individual Members put in this bill. I drafted this bill. I drafted it
in broad consultation with Members of this Senate. There are no
earmarks in the sense of what typically is in an appropriations bill
where individual Members put in provisions that have never been on any
legislation before.
One would be hard pressed to point to a single provision in this bill
that has not been in previous disaster legislation. One would be hard
pressed to find a single provision here that has not been in previous
disaster legislation, in fact, in a far more generous way than is in
this bill. In 2000, we had a disaster bill that cost $14 billion. The
next year, in 2001, it cost between $11 and $12 billion. This disaster
bill is for 2 years, and it is $4.8 billion. On a comparable basis to
2000 and 2001, that was a total of $25 billion for 2 years, and this is
$4.8 billion for 2 years. The truth is, we have cut, cut, cut to be
fiscally responsible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. How much time does the Senator require? I advise the
Senator we have 23 minutes remaining on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 21\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. THUNE. I will try to do it in 5 minutes. I thank the Senator for
yielding.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by
the Senator from North Dakota to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I
have been
[[Page S11151]]
listening to the discussion in the Senate between my colleagues from
North Dakota and my colleague from Oklahoma over the whole issue of
whether this ought to be paid for and how it is paid for. Frankly, I am
with all of you--I will stay here as long as is necessary to get this
done. If we can come up with a mechanism that doesn't run into an
objection that allows us, by unanimous consent or whatever mechanism is
necessary, to pay for it, I am for that because I agree entirely. I
happen to think if there is a mechanism whereby we can offset this, we
ought to make every effort we possibly can to do that.
However, if you look at the impact the drought had on the Dakotas
this year--it has been described on the maps shown earlier this day as
the epicenter--the bull's-eye of the drought across this country, and
the upper Midwest, the upper Plains States, South Dakota and North
Dakota in particular, have been crippled by it. It was not just a 1-
year event but a multiple-year event. It has been successive years,
year after year after year, of drought. This last summer in particular
was dreadful for producers across South Dakota. It was the hottest July
in 70 years. The rainfall accumulations we received this year were
lower than the average during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
I traveled my State of South Dakota on numerous days in the month of
June. I visited Sully County in the middle of our State. In the month
of July, I was in Walworth County in the middle of our State. In the
month of August, Senator Johnson and I went on a five-county tour in
central South Dakota. Everywhere we went, the story was the same: The
drought had destroyed our crops; destroyed the wheat crop; it wiped out
much of the corn crop. Cornstalks, where there should have been corn
growing, were very short. And even cornstalks that were a little taller
than that, when you would look further--took a closer look--there were
no ears on the cornstalks. Where there were soybeans that should have
been lush and thick, they were not. Where there should have been hay
and grass, there was not. And now, this fall, where there should have
been cows, there aren't any because producers have had to sell their
herds.
We have a practice in the Senate and the Congress of responding when
a disaster strikes an area of the country. All of us voted to support
the people in the gulf area who were impacted, just devastated by the
effects of the hurricanes. We do not have hurricanes in the Midwest. We
have droughts. And it does not happen overnight. It is not a 24-hour
news cycle. It is not something that gets the same focus or attention.
But it has the same effect in terms of the way it affects people's
lives.
If you look at droughts, you might describe them as slow-motion
disasters, but the economic impact on farmers, ranchers, small
businesses, and rural communities is just as devastating. In the
aftermath of one of the worst drought conditions since the Great
Depression, the people of the Midwest are looking for us in Washington
to provide assistance.
I am in agreement with my colleagues who have argued we ought to be
looking at how we can, in farm bills, design programs that will
anticipate these things so we do not have to continue to do it on an ad
hoc basis. I, for one, hope in the next farm bill we will be writing
next year that we can insert provisions that would accomplish just
that. But the reality is, we have had year after year after year of
drought. We have written a bill that, as my colleague from North Dakota
has noted, addresses some of that problem, not on a level that has been
addressed in previous years. The whole issue of crop insurance is
addressed in here. I think that is a good idea. We ought to encourage
people to buy crop insurance. This does do that. It reduces the payment
that would be made available to those who do not buy crop insurance.
But the simple reality is, we need to do something to respond to what
is a very devastating and real disaster for the people of South Dakota
and other States in the Midwest whose futures are dramatically impacted
by the drought we have experienced in this last year.
Agriculture is the backbone of our State's economy. That is true in a
lot of the States in the Midwest. I would hope, before we leave this
year, we can get this issue addressed, whether that is in the form of
emergency relief such as this that is fashioned today or, as my
colleague from Oklahoma has suggested, some sort of offset. Whether
that takes unanimous consent, I am for that. I am all for that.
But the simple fact is, we need to respond. We need to do it in a
timely way. I hope, before we leave today, we will be able to get an
affirmative vote in support for farmers and ranchers and small
businesspeople and citizens in the rural economy across this country
who have been devastated by one of the worst drought disasters
literally in the last century.
Mr. President, I understand my time has expired, so I yield back to
the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, we have other
Members who have said they are coming, but if the Senator would like to
take an additional 2 minutes, I would be happy to grant it to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding additional
time because I do not think that oftentimes we give enough attention on
the floor to the effect this drought has had on the agricultural
economy or the conditions our farmers and ranchers are facing in many
of the Midwestern States. And we need to have a good, robust debate
about the future of agriculture and how we anticipate, in the future
dealing, with this type of disaster.
But, as I said before, it is important for us to respond in the same
way we did when the gulf area was hit by the hurricanes, to make sure
people of this country understand that when disaster strikes, the
people in the Congress are hearing their voices and are willing to take
the necessary steps to provide assistance.
I also note, because it has been stated earlier today, the
Agriculture Department does have a lot of unobligated funds on hand.
One of the reasons they do is the payments that are normally made under
the farm bill have not been made. So there are a lot of unobligated
balances there because countercyclical payments and loan deficiency
payments have not been made.
I had suggested, in the previous iteration of this a few years back,
that we use those savings, those offsets, to apply them to disaster
relief. They say for scoring purposes that does not count. But the
reality, again, is that when you look at the balances that are
available at USDA, they are in a position to respond. This is a $4.8
billion, $4.9 billion disaster bill that applies, as the Senator from
North Dakota noted, to 2 years, 2005 and 2006.
It seems to me at least that this is a minimum level of effort we
ought to make to respond to the disaster in the Midwest and provide
direct assistance to our farmers and our ranchers and our small
businesses.
So, again, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support the vote on
this when it comes up. I hope we can get a good, strong vote out of the
Senate and ultimately act on the underlying bill, send it to the House,
and get it on the President's desk, so we can get disaster assistance
out there.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by
Senator Conrad to provide agricultural disaster assistance. I would
have preferred that we had found a way to pay for this in the normal
budget. But the Conrad amendment is an appropriate response to the
severe drought and other weather-related disasters this year. Even in
areas like western Wisconsin, which were significantly impacted but
missed the most brutal conditions, many farmers have been pushed to the
brink. Just as we did for the farmers devastated by hurricanes on the
gulf coast, we should provide a helping hand to farms and rural
communities that have been overwhelmed by this extreme weather.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment offered
by the senior Senator from North Dakota, Kent Conrad, to H.R. 5384, the
Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
[[Page S11152]]
Act. I am proud to have joined Senator Conrad, as well as the senior
Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, to provide much needed relief to
agricultural communities across our nation in need of assistance.
This legislation is important to the agricultural industry in the
State of Hawaii, in particular the County of Hawaii which was
significantly impacted by the October 15, 2006, earthquake. I was in my
home State during this earthquake measuring 6.7 in magnitude and
present during aftershocks that were felt days after the initial
tremor. A few hours after the earthquake occurred, I spoke with Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Director David Paulison to ensure
that FEMA was ready to support State and local response and recovery
efforts in Hawaii. In addition, the day after the earthquake I toured
the Big Island with Senator Inouye, the National Guard, and State Civil
Defense to assess the resulting damage.
While I am pleased that Federal, State, and local agencies have been
able to work cooperatively to provide public and individual assistance,
the needs of our agricultural community must not be ignored. Irrigation
systems damaged by the earthquake are the sole source of water for a
majority of farmers and members of rural communities in this region. In
addition to the economic impact, it is imperative that we recognize
that the livelihoods of these hard working individuals have drastically
been impacted by the earthquake. It is for this reason I join my
colleagues in supporting this amendment which would provide $3 million
to the Farm Service Agency, FSA, for its Emergency Conservation Program
to repair broken irrigation pipelines and damaged and collapsed water
tanks. Of this amount, $2 million will go toward repairing the damages
to stone fences on cattle ranches in the Kona and Kohala areas, and
another $1 million is needed under the Emergency Loan Program to cover
losses of agricultural income. The amendment also provides $2 million
to the Big Island Resource Conservation and Development Council to
repair of the Kohala Ditch system that was also severely damaged by the
earthquake; and $10 million to the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, NRCS, Emergency Watershed Protection Program for the repair of
the Lower Hamakua Ditch and the Waimea Irrigation System/Upper Hamakua
Ditch--which were heavily damaged by the earthquake and are negatively
impacting the farming community on the Big Island.
I commend Senator Conrad for his dedication and commitment to our
Nation's farmers and ranchers. This amendment is necessary to ensure
that they may continue to provide U.S. agricultural products, and I ask
my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to again speak in
support of the Emergency Farm Relief Act--this time as an amendment to
the fiscal year 2007 Agriculture appropriations bill. I want to start
by thanking my colleague Senator Conrad for all of his hard work and
his continued leadership in trying to get this relief to our farmers
and ranchers.
Mr. President, this Congress has dragged its feet long enough. It is
well past time for us to provide this relief for our Nation's farmers
and ranchers--many of whom have suffered through multiple years of
drought.
Now I know that some in this Congress and in the administration have
questioned the need for emergency farm relief. But I have to wonder
whether those individuals have seen the many fields in Nebraska that
weren't even worth harvesting because the drought had killed off the
crop.
I wonder if they have talked to the farmers and ranchers who are
barely hanging on to their farms and ranches because of this multiyear
drought and Congress's failure to provide relief.
And, I wonder if they have even seen their own statistics. Last week
USDA released a report that stated that net farm income will have
dropped by 20 percent this year in comparison to last year. This
included a $4.7 billion drop in the value of livestock production.
Nebraska farmers and ranchers are estimated to have lost over $340
million just this production year due to the ongoing drought
conditions. Nebraska farmers have also had to spend an extra $51
million in energy costs as their irrigation pumps ran longer than usual
this year because of drought conditions.
And the Drought Monitor at the University of Nebraska continues to
show that much of Nebraska is still suffering from severe to extreme
drought.
Yet even the Secretary of Agriculture continues to question the need
for disaster relief and this Congress stubbornly refuses to provide
relief to those farmers and ranchers that have been harmed by this
particular natural disaster.
And that, I think, is one of the most frustrating aspects about this
debate over emergency farm relief. Congress and the administration seem
to have no problems providing relief for other natural disasters like
hurricanes. In fact, earlier this year we provided billions of dollars
for Hurricane Katrina relief.
But even then, our attempt to provide emergency disaster relief to
farmers and ranchers was substantially reduced and those farmers and
ranchers unlucky enough to be hurt by drought were left behind and not
given any relief.
I do not understand why this Congress is willing to help farmers
damaged by hurricanes and is at the same time unwilling to help farmers
that are damaged by other natural disasters such as drought. Both are
natural disasters and both cause widespread economic harm.
That is why for the last few years when I talk about the drought I
also talk about how I decided to nickname the drought ``Drought
David.''
I gave it a name in the hope that it will help people realize that it
is a natural disaster just like a hurricane even if it doesn't command
the same types of headlines and television coverage.
A drought, unlike a hurricane or a flood, is a slow-moving disaster
that can go over a course of years. In some cases Drought David is
celebrating its fifth birthday. In other places it's celebrating its
seventh birthday.
By giving it some identity, I had hoped to attract the same kind of
attention that very often is given to hurricanes, which are named. And
I had hoped that with that attention, this Congress would provide
relief like it does for hurricanes.
Naming the drought was meant to help my colleagues focus on this
being a natural disaster, with devastation of major economic
proportions to large areas within our country and help them understand
that it can have the same impact in terms of economic loss that very
often a hurricane will cause in its wake.
I cannot overemphasize to my colleagues that the losses suffered and
the losses we are asking relief for are those caused by a natural
disaster.
These losses are due to events beyond the control of our farmers and
ranchers. And that is why this Congress needs to provide relief, just
as it does for losses caused by other natural disasters.
We cannot prevent drought. But Congress can help when a drought
devastates large portions of our country.
And I remind my colleagues that failure to provide this needed relief
threatens many small, rural businesses and communities and it threatens
our nation's food and fuel security efforts.
This amendment will provide relief to farmers that have suffered
production losses in 2005 and 2006 and it will also provide relief to
livestock producers that have suffered losses in both years. And I urge
my colleagues to support this relief.
I also want to remind my colleagues that this Congress can help in
other ways, too. One of which is to provide farmers, ranchers and other
agribusinesses with information for smart planning.
To that end, I also urge this Congress to take up and pass S. 2751,
my NIDIS legislation, that will create a National Integrated Drought
Information System.
The NIDIS bill will help create a drought ``early warning system''
that will be capable of providing accurate and timely information on
drought conditions so State and local officials can plan for and
mitigate the effects of drought.
An ``early warning system'' will give producers information they need
to make planting and other decisions. They can use the information to
limit their risk, thus limit their losses.
[[Page S11153]]
Unfortunately, due to the lack of a national drought policy, there
has been no development to date of a coordinated, integrated drought
monitoring and forecasting system.
With better research and better tools for planning and mitigation, we
could significantly reduce losses and ultimately the need for large
emergency disaster aid packages.
It is important to keep in mind that for every $1 we invest in
mitigation and preparedness, we can save $4 in reduced impacts when the
natural disaster occurs. And my NIDIS bill will invest $59 million over
the next 6 years to help with mitigation and preparedness.
But that is what we are working on to help with droughts in the
future. Today we must focus on providing relief for the devastating
impacts that Drought David has caused the last two growing seasons.
Congress must do both: we must provide relief for the damages
suffered now and we must provide for better planning and mitigation for
the future.
Mr. President, this Congress cannot be excused for its failure to
provide this much-needed relief. I urge my colleagues to support our
nation's farmers and ranchers by supporting this emergency farm relief
amendment.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to
discuss a critically important issue to Washington's farmers and
ranchers--disaster assistance.
I support the agriculture disaster assistance legislation that is
before us here on the floor and am proud to be an original cosponsor of
the bill.
Washington's agriculture economy is supported by small and medium-
sized family farms. Our farmers are a key economic engine for the
state, producing more than 300 different commodities on 15.3 million
acres valued at over $6.4 billion every year. And in our state,
agriculture alone supports more than 300,000 good paying jobs.
Washington's farm families understand hardship. They understand that
when you are in the business of farming, you have good years and you
have bad years.
Recent years have been particularly hard for them. Many are
struggling just to make ends meet as they face low commodity prices, an
influx of commodities grown abroad, and high fuel and fertilizer prices
stemming from the hurricane disasters of last year.
Unfortunately, in recent years, many producers have also had to cope
with crops lost to adverse weather. Over the last three crop years,
inclement weather, wildfires, and flooding have exacerbated the already
difficult challenges farmers in my state face.
In 2004, 32 of Washington state's 39 counties received disaster
declarations. In 2005, it was 13 counties.
So far this year, 24 counties in the State have received disaster
declarations.
Once assessments have been completed on the damages sustained from
recent flooding throughout Puget Sound and across the Olympic
Peninsula, I am confident even more counties will receive declarations.
This year many producers lost their crops or had their crops severely
damaged due to adverse weather. Others lost livestock or had herds
displaced due to wildfires.
This summer, I visited with farmers in central Washington after the
region sustained significant crop losses from hail, wind, and rain in
June and July.
I saw firsthand the damage that many of Washington's apple, pear, and
cherry orchards incurred. I saw the fruit that was no longer
salvageable. I saw the losses that these orchards sustained.
Individual orchards throughout much of the tree fruit-growing regions
in north central Washington state--in counties like Chelan, Douglas and
Okanogan--lost significant portions of their crop. Some farms were
decimated by the storms and lost their entire harvest.
These losses threaten the continued viability of many of these family
farms and orchards.
The losses also affect the rural communities and economies these
farms help support. Agriculture is the primary, and in some cases the
only, economic driver in many rural communities throughout Washington
state.
Packing houses, processors, dusters, shippers and other small
businesses depend on the harvest almost as much as the producers
themselves. Many of these businesses had to lay off hundreds of workers
this year because there simply was no fruit to pick or pack.
The agriculture disaster legislation currently before the Senate
contains important provisions that will provide desperately needed
relief for our farmers and ranchers as they begin to recover during
this difficult time. It also contains economic assistance grants to
help the small businesses that support our farming communities.
We must act now to provide assistance and ensure the continued
viability of American farmers and farm families who lost their crop to
disaster. Without it, many will not survive.
I urge my colleagues to join me today in making a commitment to help
our farm families and the communities in which they live by providing
them the assistance they desperately need.
Voting for the Conrad amendment is to vote for funding that will come
to your state and help your farmers stay viable. I urge my colleagues
to support the Conrad amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is the Senator from Louisiana seeking
time? Not on this matter?
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota, does he
seek time?
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. I am advised I only have 13 minutes. The Senator from
Montana is here as well. Would the Senator from Montana like time as
well?
Mr. BURNS. No, thank you. I appreciate the Senator asking.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, how much time would you
like?
Mr. COLEMAN. Six minutes, probably less.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am glad to yield the Senator from
Minnesota 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota
for his leadership on agricultural disaster assistance.
I wish to let this body know what assistance means to Minnesota's
farmers by reading a few excerpts from letters I have received from
producers in my State. I have been on the floor a number of times about
this issue. We need to get it done.
One man starts out saying, ``I am a struggling young family farmer in
Northwest Minnesota,'' and registers his plea:
We were counting on some help this summer to cash flow for
the year after last year's devastating floods. We are now
attempting to work with our banker to increase our operating
credit limit, refinance our machinery, or refinance our land,
just to make ends meet till we can harvest our crop. Please
do not give up on this issue.
This urgency is repeated again and again in the letters I receive and
conversations I have. Another Minnesota farmer writes there is an
``urgent need for ag disaster assistance for our family farmers
devastated by weather disasters in 2005 and 2006. My family has farmed
in Minnesota since 1882 and we need ag disaster assistance now. Please,
please help us.''
These are heartbreaking stories. These are real emergencies for our
farmers. These folks need our help or they will be put out of business,
plain and simple.
And the need for agricultural disaster assistance is great.
Minnesota's farmers have had to fend for themselves in the face of real
natural disaster--first, against record flooding in 2005 and now
against record drought in 2006.
In the sugar sector alone, revenue was reduced by $60 million in
Minnesota in 2005, thanks to this natural
[[Page S11154]]
disaster. In one county, crop loss exceeded $52 million and farmers
were prevented from planting over 90,000 acres thanks to saturated
fields. Now, thanks to one of the worst droughts ever experienced in
the Great Plains, Minnesota farmers have experienced hundreds of
millions of dollars of crop loss in 2006.
But it is not just about statistics. It is about farmers enduring
personal struggles whom I have met all over the State. It is about
farmers calling my office, desperate to save the family farm. Farmers
are losing their operations, pure and simple. The producers who will
not be coming back to the fields next year thanks to catastrophic
weather are not just losing a business, many are losing a family
tradition. We are losing a way of life. We are losing some of the heart
and soul of America and of Minnesota.
I am concerned about the comments of some of my colleagues. My
colleague and friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, indicated that
the separate disaster assistance for sugar beets is akin to earmarks. I
want to state that is not the case. It is not about porkbarrel
spending. I think what some folks fail to recognize is that due to the
nature of the sugar program, they don't get direct payments. It cannot
be structured in the same way as other production loss assistance for
other crops.
If you look at what has been laid out, we have been trying to be very
focused and very clear. This is not about excess. This is about keeping
families alive. This is about keeping farming alive. Some of the
families have farmed for almost 100 years. With all due respect, these
faulty characterizations do not do our farmers justice.
Another farmer in my State gets at the crux of this amendment when he
writes:
Maybe the farmers in this area should have applied to FEMA
for hurricane relief--it seems that hard working people in my
community are looking to their government for help and
getting ignored.
It is not that this Congress has refused to pass agricultural
disaster assistance. We have provided $1.6 billion in emergency
agricultural assistance. Of course, none of the farmers in Minnesota
will benefit from this assistance because they do not own a farm in one
of the Gulf States. Congress has not provided a dime for farmers
suffering from natural disasters outside of the gulf region.
I have stood on this floor supporting our farmers in the Gulf States.
I support us doing what we need to do to lift them up. I think it would
shock many Americans to learn that natural devastation must come in the
right package to be worthy of Federal aid. The message being sent is
that record flooding and drought do not count. That is not a good
message.
Again, I have traveled to the Gulf States. I have seen the hurricane
damage firsthand. And you should see the devastation here. The Senator
from North Dakota has done a good job of making it real. Seeing it. And
it is real. We cannot put one region against the next. This is about
America doing the right thing. That is what we should be doing on the
floor of the Senate.
The core of this issue is about equity and fairness for all regions
that are suffering. And to the thousands of Minnesotans whose very
livelihoods have been jeopardized, and those losing their farms due to
last year's disastrous weather, withholding assistance is nothing short
of cruel. We can do better. We should do better. I urge my colleagues
to support this assistance package.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Amendment No. 5151
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues' indulgence to speak
on another very important topic, another amendment filed under this
bill. And the topic is sky-high prescription drug prices and the
ability to temper those prices, to bring them down, to some significant
extent, through what is called reimportation, allowing all American
consumers a fair, safe opportunity to buy prescription drugs from
Canada or other countries.
I filed this amendment, amendment No. 5151, on this Agriculture
appropriations bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. I
thank him for all of his work and support on this amendment and on this
issue.
This follows up on work earlier this year, when we successfully
passed an amendment on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. That
was a breakthrough vote, particularly on the floor of the Senate, to
allow Americans greater access to those safe prescription drugs from
Canada at much more reasonable prices.
Our amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill would go a
little further still and expand those opportunities for Americans to
buy safe, yet affordable, prescription drugs through reimportation from
Canada.
First, let me step back and speak about the need for this in general
because there is a significant need. At a time when pharmaceutical
companies are making record profits, the cost of prescription drugs--
many of which are necessary to keep seniors and other Americans healthy
or sometimes, in fact, alive--is skyrocketing. And these are the very
same medicines that are sold at a fraction of the U.S. cost a few miles
north of our border in Canada.
With all that going on--again, in the context of sky-high, record
pharmaceutical company profits--Americans are deeply skeptical. I am
here to say that Americans should be.
Opposing the right of an American to buy a small amount of
prescription drugs--approved medication they intend to use for
themselves--does not make sense to the average American. Yet that is
still, to a large extent, our policy.
Many of my colleagues have spoken passionately on this floor, the
floor of the Senate, about their own neighbors' stories, about how
folks in their States have had to go to cheaper markets, such as
Canada, to afford their prescriptions.
In September, my colleague from Michigan spoke of her bus trips with
her constituents up to Canada to get these more affordable
medicines. She traveled there by bus with her constituents, and they
were able to get safe, FDA-approved drugs at a fraction of the cost in
the United States. She told us about her constituents who were able to
buy the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor for about 40 percent less
than the U.S. price, the ulcer medication Prevacid at 50 percent less,
and antidepressants such as Zyprexa at 70 percent less.
In June, another colleague from North Dakota spoke eloquently of the
need to allow reimportation of safe drugs as a way to pressure U.S.
pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these very same drugs--our
companies are the source of the same drugs--to lower prices in the
United States.
I have spoken over and over again about my neighbors in Louisiana,
their struggles, in many cases, to afford these lifesaving and life-
sustaining drugs, being torn by various needs--to pay the rent, the
food bill, the gasoline bill, energy costs--and yet have to pay sky-
high pharmaceutical costs. Clearly, one part of the solution is
reimportation, allowing all Americans to buy safe prescription drugs
from other countries such as Canada.
As I said, I am proud to be joined by Senator Nelson of Florida on
this amendment. He joined me several months ago on a similar amendment
which we offered to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It
passed overwhelmingly with 72 votes, a strong consensus show of support
on the Senate floor. That amendment was very simple. It said: We are no
longer going to let the border security bureaucracy of the Federal
Government use taxpayer money to take away those cheaper prescription
drugs many Americans go into Canada to buy and bring back to their
homes. We are going to let those Americans do that because that is fair
and right. We were only talking about Canada. We were only talking
about taking them back across the border in quantities that are for
their personal use, not to go into business to be a middleman selling
drugs to other consumers but for their personal use. That amendment not
only passed by a strong vote in the Senate, but it remained in the bill
through the entire process.
After a lot of fighting, a lot of discussion and argument and work on
this crucial issue, we were able to retain an important version of that
amendment in the final version of the Homeland
[[Page S11155]]
Security appropriations bill. President Bush signed it into law. Now we
have made that important change that says Americans can go into Canada,
buy those safe, cheaper prescription drugs for their personal use and
bring them back without border security agents taking them away,
confiscating them, and having them out the cost, trouble, and time of
their trip.
Today Senator Nelson and I offer amendment No. 5151 to the
Agriculture appropriations bill. Of course, that bill covers the FDA as
well. This amendment builds upon our earlier work and our earlier
success and applies that same policy to the Food and Drug
Administration, which is another enforcement arm of the Government on
this topic. Again, it is simple. We are simply saying: Our taxpayer
dollars should not be used to confiscate those prescription drugs
bought by Americans in Canada. Just as it should not be used to
confiscate them at the border as Americans cross back across the border
to their home country, so, too, that bureaucracy, those taxpayer
dollars, should not be used to confiscate drugs when they come from
mail order or Internet sales. That is exactly what our amendment is
about--Canada only, personal use only, a thoroughly reasonable,
straightforward provision to honor the American people and give them
this limited yet reasonable and important mechanism to get cheaper
prescription drugs from elsewhere.
I am very hopeful that either this week or in the near future this
sort of provision will pass, particularly given the strong vote we had
on the earlier Vitter-Nelson amendment. I am also hopeful that in the
next Congress we will be able to pass a full-blown reimportation bill
to allow broad-based reimportation of safe, cheaper prescription drugs
into this country. That is needed by Americans, particularly seniors,
across the land. It is a fair and reasonable approach. It is not a
magic wand, not a silver bullet. It won't solve the challenge of very
high prescription drug prices overnight or alone. But it can and will
be an important and significant part of the solution.
I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Nelson of Florida
and many others on this vitally important effort. I look forward to our
work on this amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I look
forward to our following up on the success we had with our amendment to
the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
Most of all, I look forward to passing a broad-based reimportation
bill early in the next Congress to give Americans what they deserve--
the opportunity, the freedom to buy safe, cheaper prescription drugs
from other sources, Canada, other countries, including by mail order
and the Internet. This will give Americans access to cheaper drugs.
Perhaps even more importantly, it will break down that system that
allows pharmaceutical companies to charge dramatically different prices
in other countries versus ours. Of course, we pay the highest prices by
far.
I look forward to that continuing work. I look forward to those
victories, because the American people are waiting for it, counting it,
depending on it. We can do this with major safety provisions built in
to make sure these drugs are safe and reliable, as advertised.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, may we have a report on how much time
remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 4\1/2\
minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire has 10 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me after I have
used 2\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are about to have a consequential vote.
The question before the body is whether the Senate believes disaster
assistance ought to be provided to this Nation's farmers and ranchers--
what is now reported to be the third worst drought in the Nation's
history. Right down the center of America, we have had a blistering
drought. The results: farm fields that look like moonscapes and
economic losses that are stunning and ruinous.
In other disasters, Congress has responded, especially disasters that
have gotten more attention. Perhaps because this disaster is right in
the heart of America, where most of the national news media is not
headquartered, this disaster has not gotten the attention so many other
disasters have.
Make no mistake, this disaster is no less devastating. People's
economic lives are on the line. We understand full well that this will
not be decided today because our friends on the other side, who are in
the majority still, have determined not to finish work on the pending
appropriations bills. They are leaving that to next year. So this work
will not be complete. But this vote remains important because it will
signal to the Nation's farmers and ranchers whether there is hope that
help is on the way. If there is no hope and there is no help, we are
going to see literally tens of thousands of farm and ranch families
forced off the land. That is clear.
This is a fiscally responsible package. Some have said it is a budget
buster. They know, as all of us in this Chamber know, there is no
budget for natural disasters--none. That is because it is hard to
predict what natural disasters will occur. So every natural disaster
must be dealt with on an emergency basis. That is why it requires a
supermajority vote. That is the question that is before the body this
afternoon.
This bill costs $4.8 billion for relief for 2005 and 2006. It is a
fraction of what disaster relief was for the years 2000 and 2001. That
disaster package was $25 billion. This is less than one-fifth that
amount.
In answer to the question some colleagues have raised, there are
payment limitations--an $80,000 payment limitation. There is a gross-
income test. On the question of those who grow the grains we consume as
a nation, let me just say, you have to have at least a 35-percent loss
before you get anything. Nobody with no loss gets a dime under this
proposal.
I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the budget point of order so we
can send a signal to the Nation's farmers and ranchers that help is on
the way.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a
quorum and ask that the time be equally charged.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the order is for the vote to occur at 5
o'clock; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an
additional 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just point out that 32 major farm
organizations have asked this body to support my amendment and also to
support a budget waiver, if it is raised, against the amendment. That
has already been done. So that will be the key vote. What is essential
is that we get 60 votes, or close to it, so that farmers know there is
a possibility of disaster assistance. There are 32 national
organizations, including the National Farmers Union, American Farm
Bureau, Farm Credit Council, the Sugarbeet Growers, Soybean
Association, and the American Corn Growers Association. It also has the
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. The
commissioners of agriculture from all 50 States have come forward and
said: Please pass this legislation. It also includes the Barley
Growers, the Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Organization, Milk
Producers, the Sunflower Association, the
[[Page S11156]]
Rice Belt Warehousers, the Fertilizer Institute, U.S. Dried Peas and
Lentils Council, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, U.S. Canola Association,
and Women Involved in Farm Economics. They all say unanimously that
this legislation is important and it is important now.
To those colleagues or their staffs who are watching the final
minutes of this debate and discussion who are wondering, Gee, does this
do what the critics say; does it unjustly enrich someone; let me say
that the answer to that is an emphatic no. This example I have prepared
shows, in North Dakota, what a farmer would get in a typical year on an
acre of wheat, which is $157. With a 50-percent loss, he gets $78.60
from the market, $27 in insurance premium, and $7 for this amendment,
for a total of $113. He would still be left with a 28-percent loss. For
a farmer who has a 75-percent loss of his crop, he would get $39 from
the market, $54 in insurance premium, $19.50 from this amendment, for a
total of $113, leaving him or her with a loss of 28 percent as well.
People are not being unjustly enriched and they are not being made
whole. We are simply offsetting some of the dramatic losses people have
received as a result of natural disaster--the third worst drought in
our Nation's history.
I don't know how much more clear I can be. I ask my colleagues to
support this amendment. In our part of the country, we have supported
every region when they have had disasters. We were the first to sign up
after Katrina for aid to them and the Gulf Coast States. We recognized
their loss. We were among the first to sign up to help Florida in the
terrible losses it has suffered. We were among the first to sign up
when California experienced terrible losses as a result of natural
disasters, whether it was wildfires, mud slides, or any of the rest. We
have had a disaster in our part of the country now. We are asking our
colleagues to help us. We will remember those who helped, just as we
have helped others in their time of need.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 4 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand we are, by a previous order,
to vote at 5 o'clock. There appears to be 4 minutes remaining. I ask
unanimous consent to speak during that time if no one else is present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I only wanted to follow Senator Conrad and
point out that this amendment is truly bipartisan. Those who have
watched this debate will recognize we have had Republicans and
Democrats come to the floor of the Senate to say this is an important
amendment. They support it, and they hope the Senate will pass it.
I want to point out again that this is the third time we have brought
this to the floor of the Senate. On two other occasions, it passed the
Senate and had gone to conference. On both of those occasions, it was
blocked in conference with the U.S. House. It was blocked by the House
conferees. I believe on both occasions I asked for a vote of the Senate
conferees, and the Senate conferees insisted on their position. So it
is not a weak will here with respect to disaster assistance for farmers
that exists. It is a very strong will, and the Senate has expressed
itself previously on two occasions.
On the third occasion in the Appropriations Committee, we had a
unanimous vote--by unanimous consent in the Appropriations Committee--
to add the disaster legislation earlier this year. That bill has not
previously come to the floor but not because we have not tried. We have
pushed and pushed to get that bill to the floor of the Senate. Only
now, in what is the last week of the session, have we managed to get
the bill on the floor and, by consent, offer an amendment.
So I think it is important to understand that we have been trying for
a long while to get this amendment fully debated, get it through the
Senate and back to conference with the House.
It appears now that, whatever may happen on the floor this afternoon,
this is likely to be a part of an omnibus appropriations bill at some
point in late January or, likely, mid-February. Time is very short.
Someone used the word ``patience'' earlier today. Boy, we have had a
lot of patience in dealing with this issue. There is broad, bipartisan
support for it--or there has been at least. We have been waiting and
waiting, and it has been blocked in the Senate from bringing this to
the floor. Finally we are here today.
This is not an idle matter for a lot of American families. For many
farm families, the decision will be a decision about whether they will
be able to continue living on and working on their family farms. For
those who don't know about them, those who never lived on a farm and
don't know what they do on a family farm, don't understand the risks
that are taken on a family farm, there are ways they should avail
themselves to find out. It is an important part of this country.
The network of farm families that are spread across the prairies and
lands of this country and produces the foodstuffs, raises cattle,
plants and harvests crops, takes all the risks, is an unbelievable
group of Americans, and in many ways they are America's all-stars, the
entrepreneurs who risk everything virtually every year. When real
trouble comes--a natural disaster--the best instinct of this Chamber
has always been to say to them: We want to help you. That is all we are
saying with this amendment. We want to help family farmers have a
chance to continue to stay on the lands. My hope is we will give broad,
bipartisan support for this legislation today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 5 p.m. having arrived, the
question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act point of
order with respect to amendment No. 5205. The yeas and nays have been
previously ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 271 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Wyden
NAYS--37
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bunning
Burr
Chafee
Coburn
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Frist
Gregg
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Pryor
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Sununu
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--6
Biden
Brownback
Chambliss
Dodd
Graham
Hatch
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained. The emergency designation is removed.
The Senator from Utah.
[[Page S11157]]
Mr. BENNETT. I raise a point against the pending amendment because it
would cause the subcommittee to exceed its allocation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
FUNDING FOR SPINACH GROWERS
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank
Senator Kohl for his stewardship of the Agriculture appropriations
bill. His work on this bill will provide funding to support our
Nation's farmers and consumers, and I support those efforts
wholeheartedly.
Mr. President, my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, and I
would like to take a moment to engage our colleague from Wisconsin in a
colloquy.
Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague for her kind words and would be happy
to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. A few months ago, nearly every grocery store in the
country was advised not to sell fresh spinach due to confirmed
incidents of E. coli bacteria coming out of California. The impact of
this outbreak was devastating: it sickened nearly 200 people, killing
3. It also resulted in more than $70 million in economic losses to
spinach growers.
As you know, one of the many responsibilities of the FDA is to
oversee the safety of fruits and vegetables. In my State, where more
than half of all fresh fruits and vegetables are grown, this is clearly
an enormous task and one that requires advanced scientific methods for
detection and response.
Unfortunately, the FDA does not have that kind of presence in the
Western United States to conduct and carry out the necessary scientific
testing and outreach that we should expect. There are currently three
FDA food safety research centers in the Nation: one in Maryland, one in
Illinois, and one in Mississippi. None of these centers is connected
with the vital and dominant food systems in California, which greatly
impairs the FDA's effectiveness in addressing the food safety and
security research, teaching, and outreach needs in the Western United
States.
Last year we provided funding to establish an FDA Western Center for
Food Safety to serve the vast agricultural food safety needs of the
Western United States. This center would be collocated with the Western
Center for Food Safety and Security at the University of California at
Davis, a place where the FDA would benefit from the synergy of working
in an academic research environment with university scientists and with
university extension specialists who already have the critical
relationships with farmers that the FDA needs to be effective.
Unfortunately, this funding was not agreed to by the House conferees.
The University of California at Davis already has a facility for the
FDA scientists to move in to. This year I am once again seeking your
assistance for a modest appropriation to begin the development of this
FDA presence to serve the food safety needs of the vast agricultural
regions in the Western United States and the consumers across the
country who depend on a safe and reliable food supply.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first I would like to thank the chairman
of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Kohl, for
working with Senator Feinstein and me on these important food safety
projects.
As Senator Feinstein has already explained, a recent E. coli outbreak
in spinach produced in California has reminded us of the critical
importance of food safety and public health scientific research. We
hope that with a renewed focus on providing food safety scientists with
the proper tools, we can learn more about how to control the impact of
future E. coli outbreaks and protect the Nation's food supply from all
food-borne illnesses.
To accomplish this goal, the Agricultural Research Service, ARS, is
ready to begin work on a leafy green food safety research program that
will help inform the choices producers and regulators make to secure
the safety of the leafy vegetable food supply. With the necessary
funding that we hope can be provided in conference for these important
goals, ARS will complete the ongoing process of expanding its small
existing vegetable food safety program and produce applied science that
the Nation's growers can use to help keep their products safe.
After all of the work done in recent years to get Americans to eat
more fruits and vegetables, taking no action to prevent food safety
scares like the recent E. coli outbreak in spinach will threaten to
depress consumption and reverse progress made to encourage healthy
eating choices. With a renewed focus on food safety science, we can
create an atmosphere for increased consumer confidence and at the same
time strengthen public health protections.
Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the remarks of the Senators from California
and assure them that I will work to address these items.
VHS Testing Facilities
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as you know, the Animal Plant and
Health Inspection Service, APHIS, issued an emergency order on October
24, 2006 which prohibited the importation of 37 species of live fish
from two Canadian provinces and the interstate movement within the
eight Great Lakes States. APHIS issued this order with the intention of
stopping the spread of viral hemorrhagic septicemia, VHS, within the
Great Lakes States which has been linked to fish kills. On November 14,
2006 APHIS modified their emergency order to allow the interstate
movement of live fish within and from the Great Lakes States provided
the fish have tested negative to VHS. I appreciate the concerns APHIS
has about the spread of this virus and their concern about protecting
the Great Lakes from this virus. I share the goal in restoring and
protecting our Great Lakes. I too am deeply concerned about the
negative effects associated with the spread of this virus within the
Great Lakes and its potential impact on our fishing and aquaculture
industry. It is very important that we take responsible steps forward
in limiting the spread of this virus which could impact the region. The
commercial and sport fishing industry in the Great Lakes is a $4
billion industry and is a source of pride in our region.
I am concerned, however, that this emergency order does not
adequately take into consideration the economic concerns of the region.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the aquaculture industry
in the region have all expressed that this order will adversely affect
businesses and the State's ability to stock Lake Erie. The Ohio
Department of Agriculture has indicated to me they are not equipped to
test for this disease at this time and that the cost could be
approximately $200,000 to update their labs to meet the demands of the
APHIS order. It is critical that we be able to provide the Great Lakes
States the ability to begin testing in order to comply with the APHIS
order in a timely manner. Funding will be needed to meet these demands.
Without this assistance, the aquaculture industry will suffer. Because
I believe this issue can be resolved in conference, I have introduced,
but will not offer, an amendment to provide funding for the Great Lakes
States to help them set up facilities to test fish for VHS. The
chairman and ranking member are aware of this important issue and share
my concerns about the problem facing the Great Lakes States today. It
is my hope that we can work together during conference negotiations on
the FY2007 Agriculture Appropriations bill to find relief for the Great
Lakes States in this matter.
Mr. DeWINE. Senator Voinovich has stated, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service emergency Federal
order banning the interstate shipment of several species of fish is
having a crippling effect on Ohio's aquaculture industry. While my
colleague and I recognize APHIS' attempt to stop the spread of a
damaging disease and their readiness to make amendments to the
emergency order, many Great Lakes States, such as Ohio, lack sufficient
testing programs and facilities to fully comply with the new testing
regulation.
It is appropriate to make our Senate colleagues aware of this issue
during FY2007 Agriculture appropriations debate, as resources are
needed to assist State and Federal agencies to establish additional
testing facilities, monitor the spread of VHS throughout the region,
and conduct research on the disease. At this time, it is difficult to
[[Page S11158]]
fully quantify the financial needs of the entire Great Lakes region in
light of these new amendments. The aquaculture industry operates on a
short time-frame, and our aquaculture producers and sportsmen need
assistance, or their livelihoods will be in jeopardy. Mr. President,
Senator Voinovich and I are committed to working with APHIS officials
and State departments of agriculture and departments of natural
resources to provide them with resources to resume commerce responsibly
and combat this disease. We are hopeful that FY2007 Agriculture
appropriations conference negotiations will provide an opportunity to
allocate much-needed funding to Ohio and other Great Lakes States.
Mr. KOHL. As ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee and a member of the Great Lakes Task Force, I share in my
colleagues' efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes. I am aware
of the risks associated with the spread of this virus within the Great
Lakes and understand the need to limit its spread. It is my hope that
we can help the Great Lakes states address this challenge and enhance
their ability to ensure the safe movement of live fish within the
region. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.
Mr. BENNETT. I recognize the concerns the distinguished Senators from
Ohio have about protecting the Great Lakes and their efforts to balance
the environmental and economic needs of the region. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this Issue.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the chairman and ranking member and look
forward to working on this effort during conference negotiations.
Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate the chairman's attention and collaboration
on this issue.
Delaware Agricultural Museum and Village
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss
with my friends, the Senators from Utah and Wisconsin, an important
proposal that will enhance Delaware's economy by promoting agri-tourism
and our agricultural heritage.
As we all know, Senator Bennett, the chairman, and Senator Kohl, the
ranking member, of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have the
difficult job of managing funding priorities for the Nation's
agriculture spending and do a superb job in that role.
I bring to my colleagues' attention an important proposal that merits
serious consideration--the Delaware Agricultural Museum and Village,
which interprets and preserves the story of Delaware's past and
promotes an understanding of the vital role agriculture plays in our
daily lives.
This is a vital cultural resource center that presents the history
and function of American agriculture. It is very important that the
American people, and especially our youth, understand the source of
their food supply. This is especially so in view of such critical
issues as childhood obesity, food safety, and the continuing loss of
farmland to development.
Each year the Delaware Agricultural Village hosts thousands of school
children and tens of thousands of tourists. These visitors experience
19th century farming life and witness the evolution of American
agriculture. The school children of Delmarva benefit from the summer
camps, field trips, and educational programs provided by this facility.
These activities help our children understand and appreciate the joys
and struggles of farming life in the past as well as today. This
institution is a great demonstration of the valuable role that farming
ingenuity and technological innovation play in dairy, poultry farming,
and rural life in Delaware and across the country.
Every year 25,000 people visit this center, and between 6,000 and
9,000 school children participate annually in field trips, summer
camps, and other activities. The village serves all of the Delmarva
Peninsula and receives visitors from across the Nation. Last week, the
center hosted a school from as far away as Texas.
Specifically, the funds requested will be combined with additional
funds from private individuals, businesses, and other government
sources to ensure the Delaware Agricultural Museum and Village will be
able to better serve their agri-tourism and educational guests. Every
year it seems the facility is asked to do more and more. These
additional funds will help provide additional space and more
accommodating facilities while avoiding construction of an entirely new
building.
I and the rest of the Delaware congressional delegation are very
supportive of this program and seek the support of the bill managers in
asking the Department of Agriculture to consider and assist this
project with resources available in the Rural Development mission area.
We also request that the managers help support this item in the
conference committee on the Agriculture appropriations bill.
So, with this background, I ask my friends from Utah and Wisconsin
whether it is correct that the Delaware Agricultural Museum and Village
will be considered in the conference between the House and Senate on
this bill?
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, The Senator from Delaware has obviously
made a very strong case for this important educational resource center
in Delaware, and it is apparent that the Delaware Agricultural Museum
and Village provides an important contribution to Delaware's economy
and its agri-tourism and agriculture industry. I yield to my
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. I agree with my colleague, the chairman of our
subcommittee. This project appears to be a well-established enterprise
worthy of consideration for rural development program assistance, so we
thank the Senator for his work in this regard.
Mr. BENNETT. In response to the Senator's question concerning this
proposal, I am confident that this request will receive very careful
consideration by the Senate conferees.
Mr. KOHL. I concur with the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. CARPER. I thank my friends for taking a moment to discuss this
matter with me. I urge my colleagues who will be negotiating these
provisions with the House to carefully consider the benefits of this
proposal. I thank them in advance for any assistance they may render.
penicillin
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that
I believe needs attention during debates on the Agriculture
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Antimicrobial drugs that are
used to treat human diseases are being used at an alarming rate in
large-scale animal production. There is growing evidence of an
increased human health risk as a result, specifically the development
of antibiotic resistance.
Penicillin is a very important antimicrobial drug. It is an essential
treatment for serious human diseases and infections, such as
Meningococcal meningitis and strep throat. Since its discovery in 1928,
it has been estimated that penicillin has saved nearly 200 million
lives. Overuse of this drug in agriculture could cause humans to build
up resistance to penicillin, limiting our treatment options during
health outbreaks.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, livestock producers
in the United States use an estimated 24.6 million pounds of
antimicrobials on healthy animals every year. Furthermore, the overall
use of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes has risen by nearly
50 percent since 1985.
The World Health Organization outlined recommendations for healthy
livestock production without the use of antimicrobials in the report
``Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance'' in 2000. The report illustrated
those farmers who stopped ``relying on antimicrobials as growth
promoters in livestock have experienced no economic repercussions--
provided that animals were given enough space, clean water, and high-
grade feed.'' These living conditions are also crucial in avoiding the
spread of diseases.
I was pleased that in July 2000, the Food and Drug Administration,
FDA, announced its intention to ban the use of fluoroquinolone for
poultry production due to increasing evidence of antibiotic resistant
Campylobacter cultures. Campylobacter infects over 2 million people
each year, particularly babies under 1 year old and young adults, and
it is a leading cause of diarrhea and food-borne illness.
[[Page S11159]]
In 1999, more than 11,000 people infected with Campylobacter were
receiving less effective or ineffective treatment with
fluoroquinolones, up from 5,000 people just one year before. Scientist
later discovered the fluoroquinolone-resistant strand of Campylobacter
found in humans was the same as those found in animals. Concerns over
the emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria led the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to oppose approval of
fluoroquinolones for animal use.
The fact is diseases that were once easily treated and cured by
antimicrobial drugs are becoming more difficult to treat. Resistance to
these drugs has been linked to the overuse of these drugs in animal
treatment. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has recently
expressed concerns regarding the overuse of penicillin in the feeds of
the animals humans consume. In a May 2004 a statement to manufacturers
of veterinary penicillin, the FDA stated that their products could play
a role in building up human resistance to this drug, as penicillin is
often used in animals to induce animal growth and prevent diseases.
I share in the FDA's concern regarding growing resistance to
antibiotics like penicillin, and I believe that we should not use these
drugs in animal feed without fully understanding the impact on human
health. I believe it is important for the Center for Veterinary
Medicine to conduct more research on the effects of penicillin in
animal feeds, and encourage funding to be added for this purpose. Doing
so would shed much needed light on how widespread use of these drugs in
feed can affect treating human infections.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for her attention to this issue. I
appreciate all of the important facts she has raised, and look forward
to working with her.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer to the
Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. My amendment
calls for the Center for Veterinary Medicine to study the effects that
certain uses of penicillin in animal feeds have on the human immune
system.
Antimicrobial drugs that are used to treat human diseases are being
used at an alarming rate in large-scale animal production. There is
growing evidence of an increased human health risk as a result,
specifically the development of antibiotic resistance.
Penicillin is a very important antimicrobial drug. It is an essential
treatment for serious human diseases and infections, such as
meningococcal meningitis and strep throat. Since its discovery in 1928,
it has been estimated that penicillin has saved nearly 200 million
lives. Overuse of this drug in agriculture could cause humans to build
up resistance to penicillin, limiting our treatment options during
health outbreaks.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, livestock producers
in the United States use an estimated 24.6 million pounds of
antimicrobials on healthy animals every year. Furthermore, the overall
use of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes has risen by nearly
50 percent since 1985.
The World Health Organization outlined recommendations for healthy
livestock production without the use of antimicrobials in the report
``Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance'' in 2000. The report illustrated
those farmers who stopped ``relying on antimicrobials as growth
promoters in livestock have experienced no economic repercussions--
provided that animals were given enough space, clean water, and high-
grade feed.'' These living conditions are also crucial in avoiding the
spread of diseases.
I was pleased that in July 2000, the Food and Drug Administration,
FDA, announced its intention to ban the use of fluoroquinolone for
poultry production due to increasing evidence of antibiotic resistant
Campylobacter cultures. Campylobacter infects over 2 million people
each year, particularly babies under 1 year old and young adults, and
it is a leading cause of diarrhea and food-borne illness.
In 1999, more than 11,000 people infected with Campylobacter were
receiving less effective or ineffective treatment with
fluoroquinolones, up from 5,000 people just 1 year before. Scientists
later discovered the fluoroquinolone-resistant strand of Campylobacter
found in humans was the same as those found in animals. Concerns over
the emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria led the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to oppose approval of
fluoroquinolones for animal use.
The fact is diseases that were once easily treated and cured by
antimicrobial drugs are becoming more difficult to treat. Resistance to
these drugs has been linked to the overuse of these drugs in animal
treatment. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has recently
expressed concerns regarding the overuse of penicillin in the feeds of
the animals humans consume. In a May 2004 statement to manufacturers of
veterinary penicillin, the FDA stated that their products could play a
role in building up human resistance to this drug, as penicillin is
often used in animals to induce animal growth and prevent diseases.
I share in the FDA's concern regarding growing resistance to
antibiotics like penicillin, and I believe that we should not use these
drugs in animal feed without fully understanding the impact on human
health. I believe it is important for the Center for Veterinary
Medicine to conduct more research on the effects of penicillin in
animal feeds, and encourage funding to be added for this purpose. Doing
so would shed much needed light on how widespread use of these drugs in
feed can affect treating human infections.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important
amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, although it does not appear that we will be
able to complete action on the Agriculture appropriations bill this
evening, I would like to take a quick moment to thank Senator Bennett
and his staff for their hard work. I have had the pleasure of serving
with Senator Bennett on this subcommittee for the last 4 years, and
every year he and his staff have worked very hard to write a
responsible, bipartisan bill that spends the American citizens tax
dollars wisely. They have also worked very closely with my staff, and I
remain grateful for that. Once again, I would like to thank Fitz Elder,
who did a great job in his first year as clerk, Dianne Preece, Stacy
McBride, and Graham Harper. Senator Bennett, you have an exemplary
staff, and I am grateful for all of their, and your, hard work and
professionalism.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would first like to applaud and thank
the senior Senator from Mississippi and chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Cochran. Because of his leadership, the Committee on
Appropriations reported each of the 12 appropriations bills to the
Senate before the August recess, while also shepherding the passage of
a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring for the war in Iraq
and the lingering effects of Hurricane Katrina. This is the earliest
the committee has reported all its bills since 1988. I believe the
Appropriations Committee to be one of the most difficult committees to
chair in the Senate, and Chairman Cochran has done a marvelous job.
During his tenure, he has worked diligently to maintain regular order,
and once again this year he made sure the committee met its
responsibilities.
I also would like to thank my staff and the staff of Senator Kohl.
Specifically, I would like to thank Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick,
Bill Simpson, and Tom Gonzales of the minority staff and Fitz Elder,
Dianne Preece, Stacy McBride, and Graham Harper of the majority. A
special mention goes to Hunter Moorhead, who ably assisted in the
drafting of this legislation before leaving the subcommittee staff to
take a position at the White House. These individuals work in a truly
bipartisan manner, and I thank them for their hard work this year.
Shortly, the Senate will vote in relation to the agricultural
disaster amendment, and the Agriculture appropriations bill will come
to a premature end. It was the first appropriations bill to be reported
to the Senate this year, and it will likely be the last to be
considered by the Senate in the 109th Congress. While I would prefer a
vote on final passage, we will have to finish the fiscal year 2007
Agriculture appropriations bill in the 110th Congress.
I wish Senator Kohl Godspeed as he takes over the helm of the
subcommittee in the next Congress. It has been my pleasure to work with
him over the last 3 years.
____________________