[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.




                          ____________________