[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20760-20779]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 20760]]

   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1984

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to label, mark, 
stamp, or tag as ``inspected and passed'' meat, meat products, poultry, 
  or poultry products that do not meet pathogen reduction performance 
                               standards)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1984:
       On page 78, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 7  . PATHOGEN REDUCTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

       (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to label, mark, stamp, or tag as ``inspected and 
     passed'' meat, meat food products, poultry, or poultry 
     products under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.) or the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
     451 et seq.) produced in establishments that do not meet 
     pathogen reduction performance standards (including 
     regulations), as determined by the Secretary in accordance 
     with applicable rules of practice.
       (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than May 31, 2002 the Secretary 
     shall initiate public rulemaking to ensure the scientific 
     basis for any such pathogen reduction performance standard.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment, I believe, comes at a very 
critical time in our Nation for concerns about our safety, about food 
safety, about what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has told 
us--that less than 1 percent of our imported food is being inspected. 
There is great concern.
  Quite frankly, I have been involved in agricultural matters now for 
27 years. For many of those 27 years, I was involved, in both the House 
and the Senate, in changing the inspection procedures at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture dealing with meat, poultry, meat products, 
and poultry products to ensure that the people of our country would 
have the highest assurance that the meat products and poultry products 
they were purchasing in the store would be safe, that they would have 
reduced pathogens, and that people could buy them with the absolute 
assurance that every possible step was taken to ensure they would not 
get sick.
  We have had cases in the recent past. We know about the Jack In The 
Box and E. Coli 015787. People died. We know from some of the lunch 
meat packaged in a plant in Michigan where people got sick. Some died 
there as well. There isn't a week that goes by that we don't hear 
reports of some illness someplace because of food, food products. It is 
not always meat, it may be other things.
  So during these years, we changed the processes to ensure we would 
have meat and meat products that would be as free from pathogens as 
possible. We called that the HACCP. That is what everybody calls it. It 
stands for the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point rule. We adopted 
that in 1996. It was a landmark revision of the meat and poultry 
inspection system. This rule implemented sweeping changes to accomplish 
one primary goal: To ensure safer meat and poultry products, to reduce 
the level of pathogens on meat and poultry products. That is why we did 
it. It took us years to get to that point.
  It was a significant departure from previous meat and poultry 
inspection efforts--the old poke and sniff system. That is what it was. 
You looked at it, you poked it and sniffed it, and if it seemed OK, it 
went through. It did absolutely nothing to ensure the reduction of 
pathogens.
  So for the first time, USDA was not only focused on ensuring good 
sanitation in plants, which we had always done, going clear back to the 
Wholesome Meat Act, but also on reducing pathogens--the things that 
really were making people sick. You might have had a plant that wasn't 
the cleanest in the world, but it may not have had pathogens. Maybe the 
plant looked clean on the outside--clean and sparkling--but at some 
point in that processing plant, or packing plant, pathogens could be 
entering the meat or meat products.
  The pathogen reduction rule that accompanied the HACCP rule 
established a modern inspection system based on two fundamental 
principles:
  First, the meat and poultry industry has the primary responsibility 
to ensure the safety of our products by designing and implementing food 
safety plants. Again, this is something the industry wanted. All these 
years, the industry kept coming to us saying: We can do it ourselves. 
We can set up systems to control the safety of our food and our meat 
and our meat products. So we said: OK, fine, you can have that 
authority. We will give that to you, along with the responsibility. So 
that was the first fundamental principle--that the industry was now 
going to be responsible.
  The second fundamental principle was that the public health is best 
served by reducing the level of pathogens on meat and poultry products 
nationwide. You might say, well, if you buy something with pathogens on 
it, if you cook it well enough, you don't have to worry. Fine. But a 
lot of people don't. A lot of people don't. So we said the public 
health of America is best served by reducing the pathogens on meat and 
poultry products.
  To accomplish these two principles, USDA developed pathogen reduction 
standards using salmonella as the indicator bacteria.
  These standards set targets that plants have to meet for reducing 
microbial pathogen levels. If a plant repeatedly fails to meet these 
targets, USDA may refuse to inspect the plant's products, effectively 
shutting the plant down until that plant implements a corrective action 
plan to meet the pathogen reduction standard. Recognize, I say ``may.'' 
The USDA may refuse to inspect the plant's products. It does not say 
``shall.'' It says, ``may.'' So there is broad authority for the 
Secretary of Agriculture to work with a plant. If it has a problem, if 
there are pathogens that have showed up in the meat or poultry 
products, the Secretary can work with the plant.
  How did the pathogens get there? From where did they come? How do you 
control it? How do you keep it from happening in the future? That has 
been the process by which USDA has operated under this rule.
  Quite frankly, we have had some pretty amazing results. I use this 
first chart again to repeat for the sake of emphasis what I said. To 
ensure safe food we needed two things: We needed the HACCP plan. Plus, 
we needed the pathogen reduction standards.
  If you take away one or the other, it does not work. So you need 
both. So what has happened since 1996 when we first changed this and 
started implementing it? From 1998 to 2000, 2 years, salmonella, which 
makes you pretty sick--I know because I had it once--the class of the 
product, using the present performance standard, the one we now have, 
boilers have gone from 20 percent to 11.4 percent, almost cut in half. 
As I understand, we are making even further progress there.
  Ground beef went from 7.5 percent to 4.4 percent, again almost a 50-
percent reduction. Ground chicken, where we had some baseline studies, 
we went from 44.6 percent incidents in ground chicken of salmonella to 
16.2 percent.
  Are our people safer today? You bet they are safer. By a long shot, 
they are safer in eating meat, meat products, poultry and poultry 
products. So it is working.
  So what is this amendment all about that I just offered? What 
happened was there was a plant in Texas called Supreme Beef. Basically, 
Supreme Beef had been warned three times by the Department of 
Agriculture that they had too high a level of pathogen, salmonella, on 
their ground beef. This was a ground beef plant. They warned them one 
time.
  Did they shut the plant down? No, they did not shut the plant down. 
They

[[Page 20761]]

said: You have too much salmonella in your ground beef. We found it. Do 
something about it. Work with us.
  Sometime later, I think about a year later, if I am not mistaken, 
USDA inspected the plant again, took some samples, and found out there 
was still a high level of salmonella in the ground beef. The USDA said 
to Supreme Beef, you have to clean up your act. You have to find out 
where these are coming from and stop it.
  Again, some time went by. USDA went back, inspected them the third 
time and found that same high level of salmonella in their ground beef. 
This time they told them to shut down.
  During the entire time USDA was working with Supreme Beef to get them 
to clean up their act, we continued to buy ground beef from that same 
plant for the school lunch program, even though it had high levels of 
salmonella, putting our kids in school at risk. Yet the Department of 
Agriculture worked with Supreme Beef to get them to find out where was 
the salmonella coming from and to stop it--three times. Yet Supreme 
Beef just thumbed their nose at the USDA.
  Then what happened? After USDA shut them down, lawyers for Supreme 
Beef went to court. They went to court arguing the Secretary of 
Agriculture did not have the authority to shut down Supreme Beef based 
upon these salmonella standards. The case was argued in Federal 
District Court in Texas. Supreme Beef lawyers went to court challenging 
the authority of the Secretary to take that action. It was argued at 
length.
  On May 25 of 2000, 1\1/2\ years ago, the Federal District Court for 
the Northern District of Texas held the United States Department of 
Agriculture does not have the statutory authority to enforce its 
salmonella pathogen reduction standard for ground beef.
  That case is now on appeal to the appeals court. We do not know when 
a decision is going to be made.
  Quite frankly, the Texas case is a frontal assault on microbiological 
standards, the very thing the people of our country are highly 
concerned about right now. The decision undermines the only objective 
standard we have right now to ensure that meat and poultry plants are 
reducing the level of pathogens on its products. It threatens the very 
core of the pathogen reduction rule itself.
  Let me be very clear. I think the district court got it wrong. I 
believe the existing meat and poultry inspection acts do give USDA that 
authority to issue and enforce pathogen reduction standards. I think it 
is intolerable to have the very core of this rule trampled by a handful 
of industry lawyers bent on ensuring there are no enforceable pathogen 
standards--none. That is what they want. That is why I have offered 
this amendment.
  This amendment has broad support among public health groups, consumer 
groups, farmers, labor unions, senior citizens, even the meat and 
poultry industry itself. The American Farm Bureau Federation supports 
this amendment, AARP, the American Food Safety Institute, American 
Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the 
National Farmers Union, the National Parent Teachers Association, the 
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, the Iowa Meat Processors 
Association from my own State, the Iowa Pork Producers Association, and 
the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, the Consumers Union.
  I ask unanimous consent the list of all these groups that support my 
amendment and the letters from these groups in support of my amendment 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Supporters of the Harkin Amendment

       AARP.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Food Safety Institute.
       American Public Health Association.
       Center for Science in the Public Interest.
       Consumer Federation of America.
       Consumer Union.
       Government Accountability Project.
       National Consumers League.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Parent Teachers Association.
       Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stock Growers 
     of America.
       Iowa Meat Processors Association.
       Iowa Pork Producers Association.
       Iowa Farm Bureau Federation.
       Safe Tables Our Priority.
       United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
                                  ____



                                                 National PTA,

                                  Chicago, IL, September 26, 2001.
     Senate Appropriations Committee,
     Agriculture Subcommittee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I am writing to urge your support for the 
     amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill that will be 
     introduced by Senator Harkin to clarify USDA's legal 
     authority to enforce standards for reducing pathogens in meat 
     and poultry products.
       As president of the National PTA, I represent over 6.4 
     million parents, teachers, students, and other advocates 
     committed to the health and safety of our nation's children. 
     National PTA supports legislation to sustain, improve, and 
     expand federal child nutrition programs, including school 
     meals and antihunger efforts. Such advocacy efforts fall 
     short, however, if the meals fed our children are tainted by 
     foodborne pathogens, to which children are even more 
     susceptible than are adults.
       The HACCP/Pathogen Reduction rule adopted by the USDA in 
     1996 included standards to reduce these pathogens. Last year, 
     however, a federal court barred USDA from enforcing these 
     standards. Senator Harkin's amendment is needed to clarify 
     that USDA does indeed have the authority under the Federal 
     Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts to enforce pathogen 
     reduction standards in meat and poultry products.
       To improve the safety of our children's meals, I urge you 
     to support Senator Harkin's amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Shirley Igo,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                         AARP,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of AARP, I am writing in 
     support of your amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations 
     Bill that would help ensure a safer meat supply. Food safety 
     is of particular concern to older Americans who, along with 
     young children and those with immune deficiencies, are at 
     particular risk from foodborne illness.
       The amendment is long overdue. We are pleased that it would 
     clarify the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
     (USDA) to set standards to control pathogens in meat. 
     Unfortunately, this authority has come into question as a 
     result of a court case in Texas, in which a meat company 
     successfully sued the Department to prevent it from enforcing 
     its performance standard for Salmonella, a standard that the 
     company had failed to satisfy on three separate occasions.
       We agree that it is imperative to reaffirm USDA's authority 
     to adopt and enforce performance standards; otherwise, the 
     effectiveness of the comprehensive Hazards Analysis Critical 
     Control Points (HACCP)-based meat inspection system will be 
     seriously jeopardized.
       We strongly support your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               William D. Novelli,
     Executive Director and CEO.
                                  ____

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                 Washington, DC, October 16, 2001.
     Ms. Carol Tucker Foreman,
     The Food Policy Institute, Consumer Federation of America, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Carol: Thank you for your October 15, 2001, letter to 
     Secretary Veneman about performance standards.
       The Department of Agriculture (USDA) believes that we must 
     have performance standards for pathogens. We recognize that 
     some groups have questioned what the appropriate pathogen 
     performance standards should be and whether the present 
     performance standards are scientifically based. We believe 
     that the results of two studies now underway by the National 
     Academy of Sciences and the National Advisory Committee on 
     Microbiological Criteria for Foods will provide important 
     scientific information. In the meantime, USDA remains 
     committed to enforcing the current performance standards at 
     every meat and poultry establishment in the country to which 
     they apply.
       Certain groups also have raised questions about the 
     application of the pathogen reduction performance standards. 
     USDA supports the retention of the Secretary's discretion in 
     determining the appropriate application of the standards.
       Because of pending litigation filed in 2000, the 
     Department's policy is to refrain from commenting on any 
     matter that relates directly to the Supreme Beef Processors, 
     Inc., case. For this reason, we cannot comment on legislative 
     amendments sponsored by Senator Harkin or by the industry.
       We appreciate hearing from you. I'm looking forward to 
     working with you and our

[[Page 20762]]

     other stakeholders to ensure a safe food supply for all 
     Americans.
           Warm regards,
                                                   Elsa A. Murano,
     Under Secretary, Food Safety.
                                  ____



                                                          CFA,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 2001.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: Consumer Federation of America urges 
     you to vote FOR the Harkin amendment to H.R. 2330, the 
     agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. The 
     amendment specifically states that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture has authority to impose and enforce limits on 
     disease causing organisms in meat and poultry products. This 
     element of the USDA's new inspection system has been 
     challenged in court. Opponents charge that laws passed in 
     1906 and 1967 did not contemplate a science-based inspection 
     system and assumed inspection would include only visible 
     examination by federal inspectors.
       But federal inspectors cannot see the pathogenic bacteria 
     that cause food-borne illness. This is one reason that food 
     poisoning has become a serious public health problem in the 
     United States. The Centers for Disease Control reports that 
     each year contaminated food causes 76 million illnesses, 
     325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. Contaminated meat 
     and poultry products are often implicated in food poisoning 
     cases.
       To help reduce the terrible toll of food-borne illness, 
     USDA introduced a new science-based inspection program, the 
     Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point 
     (PR/HACCP) inspection system. The new program sets limits on 
     the levels of Salmonella that can be present in raw meat and 
     poultry products.
       Since USDA began setting and enforcing Salmonella 
     standards, the amount of Salmonella in meat and poultry 
     products has dropped substantially. For some products, it has 
     dropped by half. While USDA inspectors remain in the plants, 
     the performance standards are the only objective measure of 
     whether a plant's HACCP program actually produces food that 
     is cleaner, safer and less likely to cause food-borne illness 
     than the old inspection system.
       If the pathogen standards are eliminated, each company will 
     be free to decide how much pathogen contamination is 
     acceptable. A meat or poultry company could produce filthy 
     products with thousands of Salmonella bacteria. Those 
     products would be stamped, ``USDA Inspected and Approved'' 
     and sold to unsuspecting consumers.
       Consumer Federation of America has strongly supported 
     Pathogen Reduction/HACCP. It is an important step forward in 
     meat and poultry inspection. But our support has always been 
     conditioned on USDA setting and enforcing pathogen controls. 
     If this objective measure of adequate performance is dropped, 
     we will withdraw our support and inform our members that the 
     USDA inspection seal is largely meaningless.
       The pathogen reduction requirements do not unnecessarily 
     burden industry. Frankly, the performance standards are not 
     as stringent as they should be. Plants have only a .8 percent 
     chance of failing three times in a row. Hundreds of plants 
     have been tested. Only four have failed the test three times. 
     Further, USDA makes every effort to help plants comply. If a 
     plant fails once, USDA works with management to adjust the 
     company's processes so they can meet the standard. The plant 
     is tested again and it it still fails, USDA continues to work 
     with them. Then they are tested yet again. This process may 
     go on for almost a year. During all that time the company's 
     products continue to be approved and sold.
       In this system, everyone benefits. Companies know what the 
     standard is. Companies that fail get help from USDA so they 
     can pass subsequent tests. Consumers benefit from the 
     reduction in disease causing organisms. The Harkin amendment 
     will assure that the pathogen controls remain in effect.
       With threats of terrorist attacks on our food supply 
     possible, it would be shocking if Congress failed to protect 
     these standards. It would surely increase the risk of food-
     borne disease and further diminish public confidence in our 
     food supply.
       We urge your support for the Harkin amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Howard Metzenbaum,
                                                         Chairman.
     Carol Tucker Foreman,
     Director, Food Policy Institute.
                                  ____



                                          Safe Food Coalition,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2001.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned members of the Safe Food 
     Coalition urge you to support an amendment by Senator Harkin 
     to H.R. 2330, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for FY 
     2002. The amendment clarifies USDA's authority to set 
     standards to control the presence of pathogens in meat and 
     poultry products. It is needed for the following reasons:
       USDA's Rule Limiting The Presence Of Disease Causing 
     Bacteria In Meat And Poultry Is Threatened. A meat company in 
     Texas has sued USDA to prevent the Department from enforcing 
     its Salmonella performance standard. The Texas company, a 
     major supplier of meat to the school lunch program, failed 
     the Salmonella standard three times. USDA sought to close the 
     plant. A federal district court allowed the company to 
     continue selling meat, despite the company's apparent 
     inability to meet this basic food safety test.
       The decision is under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the 5th Circuit. If that court rules against the USDA, 
     the department will be unable to enforce limits on Salmonella 
     in ground beef in any of the states comprising the 5th 
     Circuit. Further, the meat industry continues to pressure 
     USDA to drop Salmonella testing all across the country.
       The Salmonella standard is reasonable and it is effective. 
     Since it went into effect over three years ago, Salmonella 
     contamination has dropped in all tested products--dropped by 
     50 percent in some. USDA applies this test in thousands of 
     slaughter and grinding facilities. Fewer than a half-dozen 
     plants have failed the test three times. There are two 
     reasons for the high pass rate. First, the performance 
     standard is not hard to meet. In practice it falls below the 
     industry median for each product. To pass, a plant need not 
     even be as good as the least effective plant in the top half 
     of all plants. In 2000, 91 percent of the ground beef plants 
     tested by USDA under the rule met the standard on each round 
     of tests and 92 percent of the 344 small ground beef plants 
     tested met the standard on each round.
       Second, USDA helps plants meet the standard. If a plant 
     fails once, USDA staff works with the plant to help it 
     resolve the problem. If it fails a second time, the USDA 
     again seeks to help the plant correct the deficiencies in its 
     HACCP plan. It is only when a plant, after getting help from 
     USDA and being given multiple opportunities to pass, fails a 
     third time to meet the Salmonella standard, that it becomes 
     subject to sanctions. In the case of Supreme Beef, almost a 
     year passed between the time Supreme failed the first test 
     and the point at which USDA finally tried to close the plant. 
     Consumers might well ask why USDA allows any plant that fails 
     to meet the Salmonella contamination limit to continue 
     operating for such extended periods.
       Limits on Salmonella in meat and poultry are basic to the 
     USDA's new inspection system, officially named the Pathogen 
     Reduction and HACCP System. In 1996, USDA began to shift from 
     its old inspection program to a new one, the so-called HACCP 
     system. Under the new system, plants are responsible for 
     producing clean, safe products. The Salmonella standard, 
     Salmonella testing, and enforcement of the standard are the 
     means by which the government works to assure that a plant's 
     HACCP program does what it promises, providing an acceptable 
     level of public health protection. Consumer and public health 
     organizations initially opposed the HACCP program. We gave 
     our support only after HACCP was coupled with pathogen 
     reduction to help protect public health. The Salmonella 
     performance standard, Salmonella testing, and enforcement are 
     basic to our continued support for the program. Salmonella 
     test results are our objective proof that a HACCP plan works 
     to limit the presence of these disease causing organisms.
       Meat and poultry are the only products that come to the 
     consumer with a Government warranty. Enclosed with this 
     letter are copies of the USDA seal of inspection. Every 
     package of meat and poultry sold to consumers is stamped, 
     ``Inspected and Approved, USDA'' or ``Inspected for 
     Wholesomeness, USDA.''
       No other product, not cars, nor tires, nor airplanes--not 
     even other food carries an assurance that the U.S. government 
     has examined it and attests that it meets a standard for 
     wholesomeness. Americans have a right to assume that products 
     carrying the USDA seal will be reasonably safe and clean, not 
     loaded with disease causing organisms. It is not unreasonable 
     to ask the companies whose products carry a U.S. government 
     seal of approval to demonstrate that those products are clean 
     and safe and relatively free of disease causing organisms.
       Food-borne illness is a serious public health problem in 
     the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control 
     contaminated food cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000 
     hospitalization and 5,000 deaths each year. Government 
     standards must limit the organisms that cause these 
     illnesses. The Harkin amendment will ensure that whatever 
     decision is reached by the Court of Appeals, beef shipped 
     within the US will continue to meet strict safety standards 
     for Salmonella.
       Please do not turn the clock back on food safety. Do not 
     break faith with consumers who assume that the USDA seal of 
     inspection has some integrity. Do not allow companies who 
     fail to limit pathogens in their products to continue to sell 
     their meat and poultry as ``USDA Inspected and Approved.'' 
     Maintaining the pathogen standard will help preserve public 
     health. it will also protect legitimate businesses from those 
     companies that are unable or unwilling to meet a decent 
     standard.
       Again, we ask you to support the Harkin amendment.
                                             Carol Tucker Foreman,

[[Page 20763]]


     Coordinator, SFC, Director, Food Policy Institute, Consumer 
     Federation of America, Assistant Secretary, USDA, 1977-81, on 
     Behalf of the following organizations:

       American Public Health Association.
       Consumers Union (Consumers Union is not a member of the 
     Safe Food Coalition but endorses this position statement).
       Center for Science in the Public Interest.
       Government Accountability Project.
       Consumer Federation of America.
       National Consumers League.
       Safe Tables--Our Priority (S.T.O.P.)

  Mr. HARKIN. It is a broad coalition, from farm groups to labor unions 
to consumer groups to parent teachers. It covers the entire spectrum of 
the food safety chain from farm to table.
  Now, some may be surprised there is meat and poultry industry support 
for my amendment. Do not be surprised. My staff and I have spent hours 
and hours in meetings trying to arrive at a compromise with industry 
opponents of these microbiological performance standards.
  My door has been open to all. There is no one who can say I would not 
meet with them to discuss how we reach some agreement. The reason we 
have this support from many meat and poultry groups is because the 
pathogen reduction standard is simply the right thing to do for food 
safety.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend from Illinois who 
has led the charge for a single food agency in this country. He is on 
the right course. I hope he gets it done soon.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to be an ally on this cause, as well. I 
recollect a few months ago there was a release on the Web site of the 
USDA suggesting they were going to relax, if not remove, the salmonella 
standard for school lunch programs. Many people saw it and started to 
respond.
  If I am not mistaken, the very next morning, Ari Fleischer at the 
White House, in the opening briefing said: This is not true; it is not 
where the USDA stands; we are for the strictest standard when it comes 
to the presence of salmonella in ground beef for school lunch programs.
  What the Senator from Iowa is arguing for, if I am not mistaken, is 
the position of the USDA, and the position President Bush has taken, is 
that they will establish the standards--the district court case in 
Texas notwithstanding.
  The Senator from Iowa, a Democratic Senator, is offering a 
reaffirmation of the position taken by both Democratic and Republican 
Departments of Agriculture. Does the Senator from Iowa recall this?
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend from Illinois bringing that up. I 
have it later in my speech someplace. You beat me to the gun.
  It is true, there was this indication that someone in the Department, 
probably at the behest of the industry lawyers, maybe the same one who 
brought the Supreme Beef case, I don't know, decided they would relax 
the salmonella standards on the very meat our kids eat in school.
  As the Senator said, the hue and cry was incredible. The 
administration came to its senses and said the next morning: It said 
absolutely not. The administration said it will enforce those standards 
and it wanted the toughest standards. All we are doing is giving the 
Secretary of Agriculture the statutory authority to do just that.
  Mr. DURBIN. So those who oppose this amendment not only oppose a 
standard created by the Clinton administration and the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, but a standard that has been reaffirmed by the Bush 
administration in its current Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. HARKIN. I believe that is entirely true.
  As I said, the reason we have such broad support is because the 
pathogen reduction standards is the right thing to do for food safety. 
The vast majority of our packers and our processers in this country are 
conscientious and want to do the right thing. They work with the 
Department of Agriculture. As my chart shows, they have been 
energetically reducing the number of pathogens that enter our foods. 
But, as anything else, there are always some out there who believe they 
can shave a little bit, skim a little bit, make an extra buck here or 
there. And after all, they can cite the Supreme Beef case in Texas, and 
say: You don't have the authority to enforce this standard.
  Those who have refused to compromise at all have resorted to a 
campaign against this amendment based on untruths and misstatements. I 
want to set the record straight on some of these most egregious 
examples.
  First, industry opponents have said that the current administration 
does not support having enforceable pathogen standards. As my friend 
from Illinois pointed out, just read what Ari Fleischer said at that 
press conference that morning, they want the toughest standards.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
Under Secretary for Food Safety, Dr. Murano.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                 Washington, DC, October 16, 2001.
     Ms. Carol Tucker Foreman,
     The Food Policy Institute, Consumer Federation of America, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Carol: Thank you for your October 15, 2001, letter to 
     Secretary Veneman about performance standards.
       The Department of Agriculture (USDA) believes that we must 
     have performance standards for pathogens. We recognize that 
     some groups have questioned what the appropriate pathogen 
     performance standards should be and whether the present 
     performance standards are scientifically based. We believe 
     that the results of two studies now underway by the National 
     Academy of Sciences and the National Advisory Committee on 
     Microbiological Criteria for Foods will provide important 
     scientific information. In the meantime, USDA remains 
     committed to enforcing the current performance standards at 
     every meat and poultry establishment in the country to which 
     they apply.
       Certain groups also have raised questions about the 
     application of the pathogen reduction performance standards. 
     USDA supports the retention of the Secretary's discretion in 
     determining the appropriate application of the standards.
       Because of pending litigation filed in 2000, the 
     Department's policy is to refrain from commenting on any 
     matter that relates directly to the Supreme Beef Processors, 
     Inc., case. For this reason, we cannot comment on legislative 
     amendments sponsored by Senator Harkin or by the industry.
       We appreciate hearing from you. I'm looking forward to 
     working with you and our other stakeholders to ensure a safe 
     food supply for all Americans.
           Warm regards,
                                                   Elsa A. Murano,
                                     Under Secretary, Food Safety.

  Mr. HARKIN. The Department of Agriculture believes we must have 
performance standards with pathogens.
  Second, the industry opponents have said my amendment will codify the 
salmonella performance standard. This is patently untrue. We only 
clarify that the Secretary has a generic authority. We do not set any 
standard. I leave that to the scientists.
  Industry opponents claim my amendment would limit the Secretary's 
discretion to determine when a plant has failed to meet the performance 
standard. This is demonstrably untrue. We worked with Secretary Veneman 
to ensure my amendment preserves the Secretary's existing flexibility 
to work with plants in danger of failing the standard. We both want to 
avoid withdrawing inspections where plants are genuinely working to 
come into compliance with the standard and there is no immediate threat 
to public health. Obviously, if there is an immediate threat to public 
health, like E. coli, or something like that which will kill you, 
obviously, the Secretary should have the authority to shut that plant 
down.
  There are a number of other arguments they have made which are 
patently untrue, but I will not get into them here. In deciding whether 
to support my amendment, my colleagues should consider the following 
question: How do you explain to America's families why a plant shipping 
ground beef with salmonella levels more than five times the national 
average, ground beef that is going into the School Lunch Program, how 
do you explain to our families that plant shouldn't even be asked to 
clean up its act? These are the facts of the case in Texas. The plant 
had the worst record on pathogen levels in the country and one of its 
biggest customers was the School Lunch

[[Page 20764]]

Program. It failed three rounds of salmonella testing. No one said, we 
are shutting you down. They asked them to submit a plan for corrective 
action. The owner refused. I think when the health of our kids is at 
stake and our families are at stake, this is common sense.
  Last, in trying to reach an agreement with those who are opposed to 
this amendment, I added a section. I will be very clear so people 
understand this added section. I will read it:

       Not later than May 31, 2002, the Secretary shall initiate 
     public rulemaking to ensure the scientific basis for any such 
     pathogen reduction standard.

  Now, the first part of my amendment basically says that between now 
and then the Secretary has the statutory authority to enforce the 
existing pathogen reduction standards based upon the salmonella 
bacteria indicator.
  That is all it says. So those who are opposed to my amendment are 
saying they want to leave a gap that between now and some indefinite 
time in the future the Secretary will not have that authority, will not 
have that authority to enforce a pathogen reduction standard.
  People ought to take a look around and see what is happening in this 
country. The people of this country are demanding we reduce the 
pathogens in our food and in our food supply. We have been doing it 
under the existing standard, but because of one district court case in 
Texas that said we did not give the Secretary the statutory authority, 
that is now in question.
  All my amendment does is give the Secretary the statutory authority 
to enforce the standards. We don't set the standards. And then it says 
further, by May 31 of next year the Secretary has to initiate public 
rulemaking to ensure that a pathogen reduction standard is based on 
good science.
  How can anyone argue with that?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nebraska.


                Amendment No. 1987 to Amendment No. 1984

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I send a second-degree 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr. 
     Miller, proposes an amendment numbered 1987 to amendment No. 
     1984.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike all after the word ``sec'' and insert the following:
       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall be available for application of the mark of inspection 
     to any meat or poultry product that is shown to be 
     adulterated: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall prepare a report, which is to be submitted 
     by May 15, 2002, to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, regarding the role 
     of microbiological monitoring and standards relating to 
     indicator organisms and pathogens in determining the 
     effectiveness and adequacy of Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
     meat and poultry safety programs, including relevant points 
     of general scientific agreement regarding such monitoring, 
     and analysis of the microbiological data accumulated by the 
     Secretary to identify opportunities to further enhance food 
     safety, as well as any modification of regulations or 
     statutory enforcement authority that may advance food safety; 
     Provided further, That not later than August 1, 2002, the 
     Secretary shall initiate public rulemaking to improve the 
     effectiveness and adequacy of the Hazard Analysis and 
     Critical Control Point (HAACP) System established under part 
     417 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in support of this 
second- degree amendment and believe it requires some degree of 
explanation as to how it may differ from the amendment which has been 
offered.
  It has been characterized that this is an issue about food safety. 
But truly the difference between his amendment and mine is not about 
food safety, it is about whether or not we are going to enforce a 
flawed standard before we have studies completed that this body 
mandated last year. That is what this issue is all about, not whether 
or not we are going to have food safety.
  My amendment doesn't move to table Senator Harkin's amendment, but it 
seeks to improve it. I believe in fact it does.
  We worked very diligently to find a way to have a solution. But the 
solution would have required authorizing and empowering the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, by statute, by his amendment, to enforce a 
standard about which a court in Texas, a Federal district court in 
Texas, has said, among other things:

       The performance standard may not be enforced because it 
     doesn't measure food safety.

  I am for food safety. But I am not for a standard that doesn't 
measure food safety. Nor am I in favor of empowering specifically 
eliminating any question about the authority of an agency to enforce a 
standard that does not measure food safety.
  I am most definitely interested in making certain that we have food 
safety. That is why I worked very closely with my colleague to work out 
some language which he has included in his amendment. I commend him for 
doing that because that language says that, by May 31 of next year, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture must initiate rulemaking and a standard 
based on these studies which are expected to be completed by that time.
  I think it would be unwise for this body to now empower the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to enforce standards that do not measure food 
safety after, last year, authorizing and requiring studies that will, 
in fact, establish a standard that will be aimed at measuring food 
safety and empowering the agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
to be able to use those standards in order to impose an appropriate 
salmonella standard for all food. That is what the question is really 
all about: Do we enforce and authorize and require the enforcement of a 
standard that doesn't rise to that level versus authorizing the agency 
and requiring the agency to, by a certain time--a timeframe certain--to 
have the rulemaking in place in order to impose an appropriate standard 
based on sound science.
  That is what this issue is about: Whether or not we are going to have 
a standard based on sound science or one that the court says doesn't 
measure food safety.
  There are some other things the amendment does that I think are 
important. It specifies that food that is unsafe or labeled 
inaccurately or is otherwise adulterated cannot bear the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture mark of inspection.
  It further goes on to make sure that the agency, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, comes forward with the report that specifies the general 
points of scientific agreement regarding microbiological testing and 
standards.
  This will require a standard that we can be sure is based on sound 
science. Until these reports are done, we can't be sure the current 
standard is strict enough. It is not a question of whether it is too 
lax. We don't know.
  I am unlikely to support the requirement of that standard until, in 
fact, we have the studies done to know if it is strict enough. The 
suggestion might be that it is not strict enough. But I suggest we do 
not know and we will not know until and unless these studies that were 
authorized by this body last year have been completed and a rule 
adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  I yield to my colleague from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I think it is so important for us to 
make sure we understand what we are talking about tonight and what some 
of our colleagues have expressed. We do not oppose a standard which was 
mentioned earlier by the Senator from Illinois. What we do want is a 
good standard.
  This body requested studies this time last year as we debated this 
whole issue. Since then, through hearings, everyone has agreed--even 
USDA agreed,

[[Page 20765]]

as they testified to that as they effect--that the standard, the 
current standard, is flawed. Basically what we have been trying to say 
is that enforcing a flawed standard is, in effect, codifying a bad 
standard. We do not want to do that.
  This issue was debated last year. We worked with Senator Harkin then 
at the time, saying the issue was not whether there should be 
enforceable microbial testing standard for meat and poultry plants, the 
question was what standard should be used and what should be the 
scientific basis for that standard.
  We directed those studies, both from the National Research Council 
and the USDA Scientific Advisory Committee, to make recommendations 
regarding microbial testing in plants. These committees were directed 
to review the appropriateness of the existing salmonella performance 
standard and to recommend a microbial testing program that will measure 
food safety performance in meat and poultry plants. We want a good 
standard. We want a standard based on science, which is exactly what 
the Senator from Nebraska is asking.
  Some would claim that food safety would be compromised while we await 
USDA's recommendation. That is simply not the case. USDA is still 
conducting salmonella performance tests at every meat and poultry plant 
in the Nation. USDA still has a wide variety of enforcement tools 
available, including withdrawal of inspection if meat or poultry plants 
produce adulterated products or operate in unsanitary conditions.
  Food safety must continue to be a top national priority. I don't 
think that is the argument here. We want to see the best standards. But 
our food standards must be practical, they must be enforceable, and 
they must be based on scientific evidence, which is exactly what we 
asked for last year.
  What we want to see happen is that we use these studies, we use this 
scientific evidence, that we have worked so hard to get, as it comes 
out this spring and put it into practice across this country.
  We don't want to base it on sound bytes or newspaper headlines. I 
think Senator Nelson's amendment will allow us to achieve that goal. 
That is why I urge our colleagues to vote for and support his amendment 
so we can base good standards on scientific findings.
  I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is a fundamental difference here. 
Quite frankly, the standard in place now is, in fact, based upon the 
best science that was available during the time when they promulgated 
that standard. As I pointed out in my amendment on May 31, the 
Secretary has to start rulemaking based upon the best science 
available. I agree with that.
  Let us not be mistaken. This amendment says if you want to have 
uncertainty out there as to whether or not the Secretary can enforce a 
patent and pathogen reduction standard, this is the amendment for you 
because that is what we have. We have uncertainty right now because of 
the Supreme Beef case in Texas.
  This amendment by my good friend from Nebraska basically says that is 
what we are going to have. We are going to have this vast uncertainty 
out there.
  I don't want my kids and I don't want your kids and grandkids, or the 
people of this country having that cloud of uncertainty.
  That is why I believe this amendment should be defeated--because it 
leaves the uncertainty there. It would allow for plants such as Supreme 
Beef to continue to snub their noses at the Secretary of Agriculture 
and at reducing the pathogen standard.
  That is why I move to table the second-degree amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. REID. Could the Chair check that again?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Their now appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Montana (Mr. 
Burns), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 314 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Carper
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bunning
     Burns
     Domenici
     Hutchison
     Stevens
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.


                     Amendment No. 1984, withdrawn

  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, what was the request? The 
Senator asked unanimous consent for something, but I could not 
understand it.
  Mr. HARKIN. I asked unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, he asked unanimous 
consent to withdraw his amendment. The amendment has been amended by 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. I hope the Senator 
from Nebraska will suggest what his intentions are.
  I don't want to object if the Senator from Nebraska is not going to 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Iowa?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are simply waiting 
now for a managers' amendment that should be available shortly. As soon 
as it is available, we will deal with that. As I understand it, that is 
the last amendment remaining. We will then go to final passage.
  For the information of all Senators, assuming we are able to go to 
final passage tonight, there will be no session tomorrow. We will be in 
pro forma session on Monday. It would be my expectation, in 
consultation with Senator Lott, to go to the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill Tuesday morning.
  I yield the floor.


                     AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman and ranking 
member working with me to find funding for a crucial Agricultural 
Research Service (ARS) Station project. This project will further the 
research and

[[Page 20766]]

commercial adaptation of swine waste management. It will be an offset 
facility located in North Carolina, but is associated with the 
Florence, SC, ARS Station. In order to fund the start-up costs and 
equipment rental associated with this project, the full cost to ARS is 
estimated to be $1 million. The nature of this project is urgent. I 
hope ARS will fund this program with available fiscal year 2002 funds.
  Mr. HELMS. I am grateful to my friend from South Carolina, Senator 
Thurmond, for his determination to pursue this project which will be 
located in North Carolina. I believe ARS should make this project a 
priority. I appreciate the managers of the bill acknowledging its 
importance.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator from South Carolina bringing this 
important issue to my attention. I am confident we can work together to 
encourage ARS to fund this project in fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand why this project is important to my 
colleagues. I will work with them to find a way to help ARS move 
forward in funding this project.


                 NATIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman Kohl 
and Senator Cochran for the hard work they have put into the fiscal 
year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an 
excellent job balancing competing interests within the confines of a 
balanced budget.
  I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee regarding the appropriation for the Department of 
Agriculture's Rural Development Programs. The committee has encouraged 
the Department to continue to support the National Rural Development 
Partnership (NRDP) and its associated State Rural Development Councils 
within existing funds. It is my understanding that an allocation of 
$5.5 million would provide Federal funding to 40 State Rural 
Development Councils (SRDCs) at the level they received in fiscal year 
2001 and that it would cover other necessary program support for the 
NRDP/SRDCs. I would ask that this need be considered when this bill 
goes to conference.
  The National Rural Development Partnership is a nonpartisan 
interagency working group whose mission is to contribute to the 
vitality of the Nation by strengthening the ability of rural Americans 
to fully participate in determining their futures. Although the 
Partnership has existed for 10 years, it has never been formally 
authorized by Congress.
  Thirty seven members of the Senate have joined on legislation to 
formally establish the NRDP and SRDCs, S. 1111, the National Rural 
Development Partnership Act. This legislation authorizes or formally 
recognizes the existence and operations of the Partnership, the 
National Rural Development Council, and SRDCs. In addition, the 
legislation gives specific responsibilities to each component of the 
partnership and authorizes it to receive Congressional appropriations.
  It is essential that the current network of SRDCs remain viable while 
we work to pass this legislation. The core components of S. 1111 have 
been included in the House version of the farm hill and we are working 
to have S. 1111 included in the Senate version of the farm bill. In 
addition, a task force, which includes significant representation 
external to the NRDP, is currently considering questions related to the 
mission, structure, and operations of the NRDP and SRDCs. Fiscal year 
2002 is a transitional year during which fundamental issues related to 
the NRDP and SRDCs will be addressed. During fiscal year 2002, unique 
role of helping to coordinate rural development policies and programs 
must be preserved.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his remarks, and I look 
forward to working with him to resolve this issue in conference. It is 
my understanding that contributions provided to the NRDP from other 
Federal agencies could be used to diminish the amount of funding that 
would come from USDA. The NRDP and SRDCs provide rural citizens and 
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and corporations that serve rural 
areas with a forum for analyzing challenges and developing holistic and 
cost-effect solutions. There has never been a greater need for the type 
of work done by the partnership and SRDCs.


                            Exotic diseases

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Kohl and 
Ranking Member Cochran for recognizing the increasing threat posed by 
emerging and exotic diseases to animals and crops through out the 
United States and providing the Agricultural Research Service an 
increase of $6,782,000 for fiscal year 2002. I also want to confirm 
that the Committee intends for at least $500,000 of these funds to be 
used to meet the higher operating costs presented by the new state-of-
the-art ARS U.S. Vegetable Lab in Charleston, South Carolina.
  Mr. KOHL. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. I understand 
there has been significant progress on its construction and the new 
facility is scheduled to open in February 2002. I agree that the 
necessary funds must be provided for its operations.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Such progress would not have been possible without the 
support I have received over the years from both sides of the aisle on 
this project. The new laboratory will play an important role in the ARS 
mission of conducting research to solve regional and national problems 
in the production and protection of vegetable crops. This research is 
critical to the continued production of crops in a sustainable 
agricultural economy.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Certainly the research conducted by the lab is a key 
component in ensuring that an affordable, safe and dependable supply of 
nutritious vegetable crops is available to U.S. consumers. I, too, want 
to assure the Senator from South Carolina that it is my understanding 
these funds will be used to meet the higher operating costs of the 
Charleston Vegetable Lab.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
of the subcommittee for their attention to this matter and, again, 
appreciate the assistance they have provided on this project over the 
years.


                       Sudden Oak Death Syndrome

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to address an emerging 
ecological crisis in California that quite literally threatens to 
change the face of my State, and perhaps others.
  California's beloved oak trees are in grave peril. Thousands of black 
oak, coastal live oak, tan, and Shreve's oak trees--among the most 
familiar and best loved features of California's landscape--are dying 
from a newly discovered disease known as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome.
  The loss of trees is fast approaching epidemic proportions, with tens 
of thousands of dead trees appearing across the Californian landscape. 
As the trees die, enormous expanses of forest face substantially 
increased fire risk because the dead trees are highly flammable. These 
dead trees are also more likely to blow over in high winds, posing a 
growing risk to people and property.
  Unfortunately, this terrible disease has also been found in at least 
10 other plant species, including rhododendron in commercial nurseries. 
Other commercially important plants such as blueberries and cranberries 
are also believed vulnerable.
  Most disturbing is the fact that Sudden Oak Death Syndrome is 
spreading rapidly. It was recently discovered in Oregon. Fear that it 
will spread further has already provoked Canada and South Korea to ban 
the importation of California oak products. Scientists believe it may 
only be a matter of time before this disease reaches oaks and other 
species in the Midwest, Northeast, and around the country.
  It is vital that we invest now in efforts to stop the spread of this 
disease before it becomes uncontrollable. Although the Senate bill does 
not include funding to address this issue, the House has provided 
$500,000 for these purposes. Last year, the Agriculture Committee 
provided over $2 million in funding to address this disease. Am I 
correct in understanding that the chairman will assist in conference to

[[Page 20767]]

ensure that the final bill includes funding to address Sudden Oak Death 
Syndrome?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes. I recognize that Sudden Oak Death Syndrome is a 
growing problem that threatens oak trees and other species in my State 
and around the Nation. I assure my colleague that I will do my best in 
conference to push for an increase in funding to $1,000,000 when the 
agriculture bill is considered in conference.


                       national organic standards

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very concerned over the National 
Organic Standards Board's recent recommendation to USDA that wild 
seafood not be eligible for organic labeling. This decision ignored the 
plain evidence on the record that most wild seafood, and wild Alaska 
salmon in particular, are the most organic, natural fish available on 
the market today.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senate bringing this to our attention. 
We will look into it.
  Mr. KOHL. I also appreciate being advised of this matter.


                  south plains range research station

  Mr. NICKLES. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has 
provided $1.5 million for the Southern Plains Range Research Station in 
Woodward, OK. However, it has come to my attention that there is an 
urgent need for a conference center at the facility to house 
agricultural conferences and agricultural training programs as well as 
community activities. Because this center is to be available to the 
community, the city of Woodward has committed to provide $3,000,000 for 
the construction of the conference center. The study for this facility 
is estimated to cost $400,000 to determine if this facility would be a 
good use of Federal tax dollars. I hope the agency will complete this 
study within available funds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for bringing this 
important project to the committee's attention and also hope the agency 
can find a way to do the feasibility study on this project.


                     agricultural research service

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for supporting my request to expand research on cereal 
crops and sunflowers at the Agricultural Research Service Northern 
Crops Research Laboratory at Fargo, ND. This bill recommends an 
increase of $900,000 for expanded research on small grains and 
sunflowers.
  The economic viability of small grains industries remains a concern 
as a result of production and marketing problems faced by producers in 
recent years. The barley industry has been particularly hard hit due to 
weather related problems. We have seen production of this crop decline 
by 40 percent during the past ten years due to weather related 
problems. In North Dakota, the decline in production has been even more 
dramatic with production falling off by 53 percent during the same time 
period.
  I think we need to use a portion of the increased funding over the 
last year's level to develop new barley varieties that are high 
yielding and have good feed quality attributes. No such program 
currently exists and I think increased research in this area would help 
the barley industry gain a competitive edge.
  Mr. KOHL. I understand the need for increased research in this area 
and I will do my best to hold the increases for cereal crops research 
contained in the Senate bill.


                         Animal Waste Research

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished chairman 
of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kohl, and the 
ranking member, Mr. Cochran, for their willingness to acknowledge the 
exciting animal waste research taking place in North Carolina.
  Senator Edwards and I are deeply impressed with the initiative being 
shown by the poultry and swine industry, which is actively seeking 
solutions to the problems associated with animal waste material. We 
have been particularly interested in proposals that will convert a 
variety of animal waste products into a usable energy resource.
  Several innovative North Carolina constituents are moving forward 
with the development of this technology, and I want to make sure that 
the Federal Government is both aware of and supportive of these 
efforts. I appreciate the willingness of the managers of the bill to 
show an interest in this work, and I will be grateful for their 
continued attention to this research.
  I look forward to working with Senator Edwards, my fellow members of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee, and the appropriators to make sure 
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the authorization and 
resources needed to support innovative use of animal waste.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, Senator Helms and I are excited about the 
alternative uses of animal waste products, and I appreciate the 
attention this issue is receiving from the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee. There has been a great deal of attention paid to the 
problems associated with animal waste, but very little has been said 
about the work taking place in the private sector and our research 
educational institutions to try and deal with this problem.
  I agree that there is reason to be optimistic that technological 
advances will yield innovative solutions that will benefit poultry and 
swine producers, the environment, and ultimately, energy consumers. We 
will look forward to continuing to support additional research into 
alternative animal waste uses, and I appreciate the interest of the 
managers.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senators from North Carolina letting us 
know of the interesting work taking place in North Carolina in regard 
to animal waste research. We will continue to work with Senator Helms 
and Senator Edwards to explore the potential of alternative energy 
sources.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I also look forward to working with the Senators from 
North Carolina as this technology develops.


                        rural facilities program

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  The Village of DeTour in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is living 
with an unfortunate safety hazard. Currently, the Village of DeTour is 
using a World War II era fire engine to fight fires within its 
jurisdiction. This antiquated fire engine is so old that safety 
personnel can no longer drive it to emergency situations. Instead, 
firefighters must tow the fire engine to any dangerous area. This 
represents a tremendous safety hazard for the hard working people of 
this unique Upper Peninsula town.
  The Rural Facilities Program at USDA provides funding for rural 
communities like DeTour to improve their public facilities, including 
providing money for new fire equipment.
  Therefore, I would ask the distinguished chairman if he would agree 
to include the Village of DeTour in the statement of managers 
accompanying the conference report to this appropriations bill, and 
list the purchase of a new fire truck as a high priority project that 
deserves funding in fiscal year 2002?
  Mr. KOHL. I will do everything I can to include the Village of DeTour 
in the statement of managers as a high priority project worthy of 
funding in fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
strong support. This community needs only $80,000 next year to purchase 
this new vehicle. Since the village has already raised the required 
matching funds necessary, once it receives this $80,000 it will be able 
to move forward immediately on the project. Will the chairman and 
ranking member continue their strong support for this project until the 
Village receives this necessary funding?
  Mr. KOHL. I reiterate my strong support for this project and will 
work in conference and will work with the USDA to make sure this 
community receives this $80,000 in fiscal year 2002.

[[Page 20768]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman.


                        audubon sugar institute

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for a 
project close to the heart of the Louisiana State University AgCenter 
as well as many of my consitutents--the Audubon Sugar Institute. I want 
take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the chairman of the 
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee the importance of 
relocating the Audubon Sugar Institute from LSU main campus to St. 
Gabriel Sugar Research Station as well as the need to encourage USDA 
Rural Development to give priority consideration to this very 
worthwhile project.
  Sugarcane is the largest economic crop in Louisiana with a gross farm 
income in 2000 of just under $363 million. Sugar and sugarcane research 
and extension education at the LSU AgCenter are conducted at the St. 
Gabriel Sugar Research Station, approximately 7 miles south of the LSU 
main campus and the Audubon Sugar Institute in the heart of the main 
campus. The Audubon Sugar Institute has a long history and a proud 
tradition of educating some of the finest sugar technologies and sugar 
engineers in the country. In the past, it drew many people to 
Louisiana, and earmarked the LSU AgCenter as a center for excellence in 
the sugar industry. However, the need to improve and upgrade the 
Audubon Sugar Institute is critical to furthering the Louisiana Sugar 
Industry.
  The first step in accomplishing the goals mentioned above is to move 
the Audubon Sugar Institute from the heart of the main LSU campus to 
the St. Gabriel Sugar Research Station. The LSU AgCenter is requesting 
assistance from the USDA Office of Rural Development.
  The equipment and laboratories at Audubon Sugar Institute are in dire 
need of upgrading and the building itself is in serious arrears and 
does not conform to safety regulations. It appears that it is no longer 
an option to run the factory continuously because of the environmental 
implications of running a sugar factory in the middle of a busy 
university campus. Relocating the Institute has the advantage of 
meeting the main campus at the same time providing the option of 
updating the Audubon Sugar Institute archaic design and providing a 
modern facility capable of handling billeted cane. It also places 
Audubon adjacent to the variety development and production research 
going on at the St. Gabriel Sugar Station. Building a new facility and 
moving the sugar mill to St. Gabriel would allow the Institute to 
function as a training ground and undertake manageable plant scale 
experiments. Having a fully functional small mill operation at Aubudon 
Sugar Institute would provide a facility unsurpassed in the world and 
immensely assist the sugarcane industry in Louisiana.
  I thank the chairman and his staff for their consideration and 
reiterate that it is my hope that the USDA Rural Development can be 
encouraged to give priority consideration to this very worthwhile 
project.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Louisiana and 
will make every effort to accommodate her request during the conference 
of this bill.


                           idaho oust problem

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman Kohl 
and Senator Cochran for the hard work they have put into the fiscal 
year 2002 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a 
challenging process, and they have done an excellent job balancing 
competing interests within the confines of a balanced budget.
  I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the subcommittee regarding a situation that has 
arisen in Idaho. The Idaho delegation is concerned over the growing 
impact a product called OUST has had on crops in fields near the Bureau 
of Land Management's rangeland treatment areas.
  The BLM has been using OUST as part of their rehabilitation program 
to eliminate cheatgrass and stop the fire cycle. The program is two-
fold. First spray, then plant native and perineal vegetation which is 
better feed for cattle and fire suppression. From October 23 to 
November 3, 2000, in order to control the spread of cheatgrass on their 
burned land, the Bureau of Land Management sprayed the herbicide, OUST, 
from a helicopter onto approximately 17,000 acres of their land.
  This spring, we began to receive reports from farmers that OUST may 
have spread beyond its intended use area and may be impacting crops in 
fields adjacent to or near the BLM's treated areas. Sugar beet growers 
noticed strange growth developments in their crops. As the crop 
developed, it was determined the lack of growth could be related to the 
OUST spray. What our farmers project happened is the OUST, which is 
activated and broken down by water, was sprayed on top of the ashes 
from the fire. With the lack of snowfall and spring rains, the OUST was 
blown with the ashes to as far as 10 miles from the sprayed ground. 
When the farmers turned on their irrigation systems this spring, it 
activated the OUST and it is now damaging the crops. The most 
significant damage reported is in the Burley/Paul area and the American 
Falls/Aberdeen area in Southern Idaho. Because of all of the 
uncertainty, BLM has agreed to stop the use of OUST until this issue is 
resolved.
  Since the damage was first noticed, testing by the Department of 
Agriculture in Idaho has indicated the presence of OUST in crops at 
least 5 miles beyond the BLM's treated areas. Those tests are ongoing 
and results continue to show the presence of OUST in damaged crops. 
According to the information we have seen, in some cases the damage to 
crops in these areas approaches a 100 percent loss. In other cases, 
crops are only partially impacted, but may still be damaged in terms of 
their value. In either case, farmers are facing over $100 million in 
reduced income. The whole extent of the problem will not be known until 
later because some crop types will not show damage until further in the 
season. Unfortunately, the projected losses these producers may incur 
as a result of OUST are only compounded by the ongoing drought, high 
energy costs, and low crop prices.
  Mr. CRAPO. I join Senator Craig in acknowledging Chairman Kohl's and 
Senator Cochran's hard work on this bill and in expressing my deep 
concerns for the farmers of southern Idaho.
  Senator Craig has provided a good background on the issue and the 
problem. I will only add that while the final impact of the OUST 
contamination is unknown, we do know many Idaho producers will be 
affected. With the difficulties agriculture is already facing, high 
input costs, low product prices, and a shortage of water, the losses 
due to this contamination could be devastating.
  Credible scientific data is being established to measure the extent 
of the damage. I look forward to working with the administration and my 
colleagues to address the needs of southern Idaho farmers.
  Mr. KOHL. I commend the Senators for their interest in this program. 
I want to assure the gentlemen that it is the committee's belief that 
the Secretary of Interior should continue to work closely with the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Idaho's 
agriculture producers, and the Idaho delegation to facilitate the 
timely flow of information and a coordinated response to this problem.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleagues from Idaho for bringing this issue 
to the subcommittee's attention. I look forward to working with them 
and the chairman on this issue.


                                 csrees

  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Johnson for helping me 
secure $700,000 through CSREES in this bill for South Dakota State 
University to continue the planning and development of a bio-based 
energy and product initiative that will be of major significance to the 
nation's ability to efficiently produce renewable fuels, as well as to 
the future viability of rural America and the agriculture community. 
Senator Johnson and I have been

[[Page 20769]]

working with SDSU to develop a concept called the ``Sun Grant 
Initiative,'' which would become a national network of land grant 
universities in partnership with USDA and DOE, dedicated not only to 
the development of cost-effective biobased energy and nonfood product 
production, but also to the disbursement of new technology, and 
integration in rural communities on a scale that fosters economic 
independence and growth. The $700,000 dedicated for feedstock 
conversion in this bill will allow us to move forward with this 
important project.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I also thank Chairman Kohl for his help with this 
project. Agriculture has much to contribute to the nation's energy 
security, and can make significant contributions to markets for nonfood 
producers as well. This biobased shift would reduce our reliance on 
petroleum-based products and provide significant economic opportunities 
for independent farm families and rural communities. These funds will 
help make this a reality, and I am hopeful that USDA will release the 
funds as quickly as possible after enactment of this legislation so the 
planning of this exciting initiative can continue in a timely manner.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senators and look forward to seeing this 
project develop.


                              potato study

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator 
Cochran for the hard work they have put into the fiscal year 2001 
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an excellent job 
balancing competing interests within the confines of a balanced budget.
  I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee regarding the appropriation for the Department of 
Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service. The committee 
has provided a $13.3 million increase in the budget for NASS. I would 
like to clarify with the chairman and ranking member that the increase 
provides $125,000 to conduct a potato objective yield, size and grade 
survey.
  NASS has developed a plan to conduct a potato size and grade survey 
for the seven major potato producing States. The intent of the survey 
is to provide all market participants with comprehensive potato size 
and grade data. These data are crucial information to both potato 
growers and buyers in estimating the current potato crop's quality. All 
involved market parties will use this unbiased information when 
negotiating sale or purchase contracts of processing potatoes. The 
National Potato Council, which represents all segments of the potato 
industry, has identified that these data are imperative to the orderly 
marketing of the annual potato crop. These data also ensure that no one 
group uses their market position to distort the true picture of annual 
crop quality. The size and grade data will complement the annual 
production data already provided by NASS and supply the necessary 
information for the orderly marketing of the potato crop.
  Mr. KOHL. The Senator has correctly stated the intent of the 
committee. The size and grade survey will be conducted in the seven 
major producing States in conjunction with the current potato objective 
yield survey. The seven states are Idaho, Wisconsin, Maine, Minnesota, 
North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. These funds are needed to obtain 
statistically defensible potato size and grade date, and the sample 
size. This amount includes equipment, supplies, training, and personnel 
needs to conduct, analysis, and publish the survey data and add the 
additional objective yield samples required.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for his support on this issue.


    FDA FUNDING FOR NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY'S PHYSICAL SCIENCE 
                               LABORATORY

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Senator Kohl, for all his fine work on this bill. I know his task has 
not been an easy one, and he and his staff are to be complimented for 
the very thoughtful and fair way they have worked to complete this 
legislation.
  I also thank the chairman for including in the bill second-year 
funding for the Food and Drug Administration to continue its contract 
with New Mexico State University's Physical Science Laboratory to 
develop and evaluate rapid screening methods, instruments, and analyses 
that will facilitate FDA's regulation of imported food products. As I 
requested, the committee's bill continues funding for PSL's Agriculture 
Products Food Safety Laboratory at the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.5 
million.
  I understand FDA and PSL have completed all the necessary agreements 
and work is already underway. Equipment has been ordered and lab staff 
is being hired. One of the first tasks will be an independent 
evaluation of biosensors for microbial contamination to ensure the 
equipment is accurate and dependable. If the reliability of the new 
biosensors can be verified they could replace the much slower testing 
protocols FDA currently uses.
  Does the chairman agree that PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety 
Laboratory is supporting FDA's efforts to develop quick and safe food 
inspection systems that can detect filth, microbial contamination, and 
pesticides on fresh fruits and vegetables and the FDA should continue 
this work at PSL is fiscal year 2001?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes, I agree that PSL is helping support FDA's food safety 
program, and I was pleased to include second-year funding for PSL from 
the total sum appropriated to FDA for food safety and other 
initiatives.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I also call Chairman Kohl's attention to the potential 
to broaden PSL's efforts, within the existing funding and framework, to 
include evaluations of technologies and methods for testing 
agricultural products for microbial contamination as well as 
contamination from pesticides, chemical and biological agents, evidence 
of tampering, or possible acts of bioterrorism. In addition to fruits 
and vegetables, the expanded scope of testing technologies might 
include other food products as well as illicit or counterfeit products 
and pharmaceuticals that could present hazards to public health and 
safety.
  I understand FDA is responsible for wide variety of product safety 
initiatives, including bioterrorism, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and 
so forth. I do believe the availability of a testing and verification 
laboratory, such as PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety Laboratory, 
could be of great value in FDA's continuing effort to combat illicit 
products and health hazards.
  Is the chairman aware of these additional capabilities at PSL that 
could be used by FDA to evaluate a wider variety of testing 
technologies and does he agree that it would be appropriate for FDA to 
consider this broader scope of effort at PSL within the funding level 
already provided in the bill?
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for bringing these 
additional capabilities at PSL to my attention. I agree that the 
Commissioner should consider broadening the scope of the effort beyond 
microbial analyses of imported fruits and vegetables to include other 
products and contaminants under FDA's purview.
  Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kohl for his support of 
continued funding for PSL's Agriculture Products Food Safety Laboratory 
and for considering broadening the scope of the laboratory. The House 
bill does not include second-year funding for the food safely 
laboratory at New Mexico State, and I look forward to working with the 
chairman to ensure the Senate's funding level is included in the 
conference report.


             tropical and subtropical agricultural research

  Mr. INOUYE. Will the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee yield?
  Mr. KOHL. I yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding. As the chairman knows, 
the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and

[[Page 20770]]

Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee has a long history of 
support for tropical and subtropical agricultural research due to the 
limited transferability of agricultural research from the temperate 
zones of the United States. This reasoning has been most evident in 
congressional support for the establishment of the Pacific Basin 
Agricultural Research Center.
  The Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center is a welcome addition 
to the tropical and subtropical agricultural research community in 
Hawaii and the American Pacific. The increased scientific and technical 
capacity offered by this center is a significant and vital complement 
to other institutions in the region. The center's mission of 
contributing to the region's scientific knowledge base on tropical and 
subtropical organisms strengthens the foundation for a competitive, 
diversified agricultural industry in the region.
  In addition to construction funds for this center, the success of the 
center is also contingent upon its ability to recruit and deploy 
scientists and technicians at a rate consistent with completion of 
construction, and its ability to work in concert with the agricultural 
research and technology transfer infrastructure at the University of 
Hawaii at Hilo and the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For these 
purposes, $900,000 is needed. Of this total, $600,000 has been provided 
and I recommend that the additional $300,000 be derived from an 
internal reallocation of funds provided to the University of Hawaii for 
two other USDA-ARS projects, Non-toxic Control of Tephritid and Other 
Insects and Environmental Effects of Tephritid Fruit Fly Control and 
Eradication. This does not deny the importance of these two latter 
projects but rather the higher priority of providing operating support 
to assure the success of the center. With this internal shifting of 
resources, a total of $900,000 would be available for the United States 
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, of which $300,000 would be 
available for the University of Hawaii at Hilo and $300,000 for the 
University of Hawaii at Manoa for activities complementing the research 
of the center.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his insight and 
recommendation. I fully concur with his recommendation, because other 
funds are internally available to ARS to minimize the impact of the 
recommended internal reallocation of funds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I also with to support the 
recommendations from the Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman and my colleague from Mississippi 
for their support of my recommendation.


                              Sugar Beets

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to engage my neighbor and colleague 
from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development and Related Agencies, and join my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Minnesota, in a colloquy on an issue that is vitally 
important to sugar beet growers in our state.
  Last fall, five hundred fifty producers in the Southern Minnesota 
Beet Sugar Cooperative of Renville, Minnesota, (SMBSC) experienced a 
freeze of sugar beets. Over the next three months, it became 
increasingly evident that a large share of the beets would have to be 
discarded. The result is a catastrophic loss of revenue that has forced 
these farmers into near bankruptcy.
  Tragically, the private insurers of those losses have refused to 
cover them, and the USDA has refused to provide sufficient funds for 
relief. We are desperately trying to remedy these two travesties to 
forestall the cooperative's complete collapse.
  Now we are appealing to you and your colleagues on the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee as our last possible remedy. We ask that 
you give these farmers your favorable consideration as you negotiate 
this bill in conference.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree with the statement of my colleague from 
Minnesota and would like to join him in underscoring the urgency of 
this funding for the sugar beet growers in Minnesota. As my colleague 
has recognized the five hundred fifty producer members of the Southern 
Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative in Renville, Minnesota experienced a 
freeze of sugar beets while still in the ground during the early stage 
of their annual harvest. The cooperative continued with their harvest, 
with the goal of extracting as much of the crop's value from the 
market, while knowing that federally subsidized crop insurance would 
likely cover losses that which were not harvested.
  Unfortunately these growers are now having difficulty claiming due 
compensation under the Quality Loss Program authorized in last year's 
Agriculture Appropriations bill. While USDA has offered to settle 
disaster assistance claims, their offer falls dangerously short, 
jeopardizing hundreds of family farmers and the local economy. The 
growers have presented USDA with information to justify a disaster 
payment of $31 million, but USDA has rejected this argument.
  It is now clear that additional assistance from Congress is needed to 
secure the continued operation of hundreds of family farms in and 
around Renville, Minnesota. I ask the Chairman, Senator Kohl, if he 
agrees that additional assistance is necessary, in this Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill, to ensure the continued viability of the Southern 
Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and its five hundred fifty member 
growers?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton and 
Senator Wellstone. Both of you are strong advocates for farmers, and in 
particular the sugar beet growers in Minnesota. I am committed to 
secure a level of assistance that can ensure the survival of the 
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop, for another year.


               GRAND FORKS AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the expansion efforts of 
the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center in Grand Forks, ND. 
This facility, which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), has been a national and 
international leader in mineral nutrition research for more than 30 
years. In 1995, legislative authority was granted to the center to 
purchase four city lots to expand its operation. Since then, three lots 
have been acquired and are being used by the facility. The ARS was not 
able to purchase the fourth lot at the same time because the owner of 
an adjacent lot was not prepared to sell.
  Recently, the owner of the fourth lot decided to sell his property. 
This is timely, because the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center recently 
acquired a mobile research laboratory with funds this bill provided 
last year to conduct nutritional studies of underserved populations 
such as Native Americans and the rural elderly. This vehicle needs to 
be stored in a secure, climate-controlled garage. There is currently no 
storage facility in Grand Forks appropriate to store this mobile lab, 
but one could be erected on this adjacent property.
  It would take no appropriation of additional funds for the Grand 
Forks Human Nutrition Center to purchase this lot. The facility merely 
needs a reprogramming of funds, and as a member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I support this request. It is my 
understanding that the ARS Area Director, as well as ARS headquarters, 
support allowing the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Center to spend its 
funds to purchase this lot. In conference, it is my hope that we can 
provide direction in the statement of managers allowing this 
reprogramming to move forward. I would like to solicit the support of 
the leaders of the subcommittee for this purpose.
  Mr. KOHL. I understand the reasons why the Grand Forks Human 
Nutrition Center wants to purchase this land, and I will work to 
satisfy the request from the Senator from North Dakota to include a 
statement of managers in the conference report to allow the 
reprogramming of funds for this purpose.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring for S. 1191, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

[[Page 20771]]

  The Senate bill provides $16.137 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $11.863 billion. 
When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $16.107 billion in 
2002. The Senate bill is within its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and outlays. In addition, the committee once again has 
met its target without the use of any emergency designations.
  I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as 
Senators Kohl and Cochran, for their bipartisan effort in moving this 
and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in 
this year's appropriations process. The tragic events of September 11 
demand that this bipartisanship continue and that the Congress 
expeditiously complete work on the 13 regular appropriations bills for 
2002.
  I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 S. 1191, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
  AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISON--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority...............       16,137       43,112       59,249
  Outlays........................       16,107       33,847       49,954
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority...............       16,137       43,112       59,249
  Outlays........................       16,107       33,847       49,954
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............       15,668       43,112       58,780
  Outlays........................       16,044       33,847       49,891
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............       15,399       43,112       58,511
  Outlays........................       15,789       33,847       49,636SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority...............            0            0            0
  Outlays........................            0            0            0
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............          469            0          469
  Outlays........................           63            0           63
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............          738            0          738
  Outlays........................          318            0          318
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the Senate-
  reported bill to the Senate 302(b) allocation.Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, recent events have demonstrated that we 
must reexamine our ability to respond to terrorism--including 
biological and chemical attacks. One area we must safeguard against 
such an attack is our food supply, which is woefully underprotected. 
For instance FDA is so short of inspectors that it currently inspects 
less than 1 percent of imports. That is why this spring, even before 
the recent attacks, the Senate passed an amendment that I offered to 
increase the fiscal year 2002 budget allocation to expand the number of 
food safety inspectors.
  While the House stripped this provision out in conference, the need 
for such an increase has only become more urgent, not less. That is why 
I filed this amendment, to add $100 million for food safety inspection.
  FDA presently has only about 700 to 800 inspectors to oversee food 
imports and investigate the 57,000 sites within its jurisdiction across 
the country. They are so understaffed that they currently are only able 
to inspect commercial food sites about once every decade on average.
  An increase of $100 million for food inspection activities at FDA, 
factored into the baseline over 5 years, would allow FDA to increase 
import inspections from less than 1 percent to roughly 20 percent.
  I understand that this needed increase in FDA inspection resources is 
being resolved in other contexts, in the bioterrorism package that is 
being worked out, or even in the debate about resources available in 
the stimulus package.
  On that understanding, I withdraw my amendment today seeking to add 
$100 million to FDA's food inspection authorities, and look forward to 
confirming food safety inspection resources in those other contexts.
  Terrorists aim to strike terror among civilians, in their homes, in 
their everyday lives, and that is why we must protect the security of 
our dinner tables and our families through increased inspection and 
greater vigilance.
  And since this is the Agriculture appropriations bill, I just want to 
once again remind my colleagues that agriculture is the number one 
industry in New York--and we plan to keep it that way.
  Our farmers--like so many others around the country--are some of the 
most dedicated, most decent, most hard-working people in this country. 
Our farmers are an integral part of our heritage. And they are out 
there every day, working to put fresh, healthy, and safe food on our 
tables.
  Our farmers are also some of the finest stewards of our natural 
resources. They help to preserve open space, and they work to properly 
manage and protect our land and our water.
  And our farmers are some of our most innovative, resourceful small 
business people.
  But our farmers need our help--at least I know they do in New York. 
As I travel around New York, I meet so many farmers who are struggling 
just to get by, just to make ends meet.
  And that is why I want to thank Chairman Kohl, Senator Levin, Senator 
Snowe, and my other colleagues for working to help provide much needed 
assistance for our apple growers. I was pleased to hear Chairman Kohl's 
words earlier today about working this out in conference.
  And I hope that I can continue to work with my colleagues to increase 
assistance for specialty crops and for conservation programs like the 
Farmland Protection Program.
  These conservation programs are important programs not just for our 
environment, but for our farmers--particularly for those farmers that 
are under-served by the more traditional payment programs. And these 
conservation programs are all over-subscribed, meaning there are more 
farmers that want to participate in these programs than there are 
resources available to accommodate.
  And, or course, we want to assist our dairy farmers by reinstituting 
the dairy compact.
  So, I want to again express my strong support for our Nation's 
farmers, and reiterate my commitment to ensuring that New York's 
farmers have the support they need and deserves.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
  I thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Kohl, and my 
good friend and distinguished ranking member, Senator Cochran, for 
including $750,000 in the bill to allow the National Center for Genome 
Resources in Santa Fe, NM, to proceed to establish a Bioinformatics 
Institute for Model Plant Species. This program was authorized through 
an amendment that I sponsored to the Agriculture Risk Protection Act, 
Public Law 106-224. The final language in Section 227 of that Act 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 
Agricultural Research Service, to enter into a cooperative agreement 
with the National Center for Genome Resources in Santa Fe, NM, and 
university partners to establish and operate the Bioinformatics 
Institute for Model Plant Species. An amount of $3 million was 
specifically authorized to establish the Institute, and such sums as 
may be necessary is authorized for each subsequent fiscal year to carry 
out the cooperative agreement. The Center is pleased to work with both 
New Mexico State University and Iowa State University in this 
bioinformatics initiative.
  I strongly urge the Senate conferees to retain this funding in 
conference with the House. The initial appropriation of $750,000 in the 
Senate bill will allow the National Center for Genome Resources to 
build upon its existing programs to create and develop software tools 
to transfer information and conduct comparative analyses among model 
plant and crop species. The Center, in establishing the Institute, will 
develop a bioinformatics infrastructure to improve the accessibility 
and facilitate the transfer of information on structural and functional 
genome information from model plants to crop

[[Page 20772]]

species. The Institute will work with university partners at New Mexico 
State University and Iowa State University to expand and link existing 
genomic and genome database research from the Agricultural Research 
Service allowing researchers to discover, characterize, and manipulate 
agronomically important genes of major crops, including soybeans, 
alfalfa, maize, and cotton. As a non-profit entity, the National Center 
for Genome Resources provides its research to the public domain to 
improve the productivity and nutritional value of agricultural crops 
grown in the United States.
  I am pleased to work with the Appropriations Committee to advance a 
project that holds the promise of improving agricultural crop quality, 
nutrition, and production.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Kohl, chairman of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Cochran, ranking 
member, for presenting to the Senate the fiscal year 2002 
appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
  This bill provides $73.9 billion in new budget authority for both 
mandatory and discretionary programs under the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction and is within the 302(b) allocation. This is a good bill 
and deserves the support of all Senators.
  This bill includes programs important to the farming community and to 
all Americans. This bill supports agriculture research and conservation 
programs that protect our soil, water, and air resources. This bill 
also supports rural communities through economic development programs 
and assistance for basic needs such as housing, electricity, safe 
drinking water and waste disposal systems.
  This bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration 
which helps protect the safety of our food supply and helps make lower 
cost medications available to Americans as quickly as possible. In 
addition, funding in this bill supports many nutrition and public 
health related programs. These include the Food Stamp, School Lunch, 
and other nutrition assistance programs such as the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program--WIC.
  This bill provides $2.794 billion for rural development programs. 
This is an increase of $318 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. Of 
this amount, slightly more than $1 billion is for the Rural Community 
Advancement Program, which includes the rural water and waste water 
loan and grants program, and is an increase of $243 million from last 
year's level.
  This bill also provides funding to support activities that promote 
animal welfare. At my request, the bill includes increased funding to 
deal with the problem of animal cruelty. The bill includes $13,767,000 
for animal welfare inspectors, an increase of $1,627,000 above last 
year's level. This bill also includes $8,101,000 for regulatory and 
enforcement activities in connection with animal welfare 
investigations, which is an increase of $1,852,000 above last year's 
level. This increased funding builds on my $3 million initiative that I 
included in the FY 2001 supplemental to improve the enforcement of the 
Animal Welfare Act and the enforcement of humane slaughter practices.
  Together, these programs, and others in this bill, will work to help 
meet the expectation of the American people that animals, whether as an 
integral element of our nation's livestock industry, or in other 
aspects, will be treated properly and humanely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in anticipation of getting this bill done 
shortly, I want to thank the Senate for cooperating and moving this 
bill so quickly and efficiently. I especially want to thank Senator 
Cochran. His knowledge of this bill, and its many complicated issues, 
is unsurpassed. His evenhanded, bipartisan approach to legislating are 
the key reasons we have such a good product in the Senate Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  I also want to thank his fine and dedicated staff--Rebecca Davies, 
Martha Scott Poindexter, and Rachelle Schroder. All of our staff have 
had to operate in very difficult conditions these last few weeks, but 
you wouldn't know it from the fine quality of their work. Senators talk 
often about keeping the work of the Nation going here in the Senate, 
but it is these dedicated staff people who do the work that makes us 
look good--even if it means operating out of cardboard boxes and back 
basement rooms, without computers, telephones, or even windows.
  I also want to thank the members of my staff who have worked on this 
bill: Ben Miller, my agriculture LA, who handles issue as diverse as 
satellites and sugar beets with the same skill and good humor. Paul 
Bock, my chief of staff, who is an essential part of anything that goes 
well in our office. Les Spivey, Jessica Arden, and Dan Daggert, who 
have labored all year to bring this bill to the floor.
  And last, but certainly not least, Galen Fountain, the Agriculture 
Appropriations clerk. His knowledge and skill are exemplary, even 
legendary in the Senate. He has done everything in getting this bill 
together, from working out countless amendments to writing up my 
comprehensive opening statement. I firmly believe that, without him, we 
would have no Agriculture appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I again thank the Senate for its help in moving this 
bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the only 
amendment in order prior to third reading be the managers' amendment. 
The managers' amendment will have to be cleared by both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, is recognized.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I'd like to add my voice to those in 
Congress who think that we should take action on a farm bill this year.
  We need to act now for several reasons. First, the House took action 
on the farm bill in expeditious fashion and passed it faster than most 
folks expected. I know many Senators--including this one--were 
surprised and impressed by Chairman Combest's pace in completing his 
bill.
  This quick action led many in the industry to believe that we would 
have a new farm bill this year that they could plan around. The result 
in Georgia has been industry reactions detrimental to growers. Georgia 
peanut shellers, in anticipation of a new program, have make market 
decisions which could result in record area pool losses, which by law 
the growers themselves have to cover. A new farm bill could avert this 
problem.
  Our Nation's newly discovered economic woes have been on the farm for 
some time now. Rural America always feels these pressures much sooner 
and longer than other segments of society. Commodity prices have not 
improved, input costs are still sky high and morale among farmers is 
the lowest I have seen it in my career in public service. Fewer and 
fewer young people want to take over the family farm and continue this 
honorable way of life. We all want to stimulate the economy, I have a 
great place for us to start--on our farms. The stimulus coming from a 
new farm bill would not only be only felt in tractor, chemical and 
irrigation sales. It would filter into the local banks, car 
dealerships, restaurants and department stores. This is why I hope the 
Administration will get behind the effort to write a farm bill before 
we adjourn for the year.
  Also, I want to act this year because of the budget ramifications. We 
fought hard during consideration of our current budget resolution to 
obtain nearly $74 billion extra which is necessary to meet our long 
term obligations to

[[Page 20773]]

American farmers. It would also prevent us from having to pass 
emergency relief bills, as has been the case over the last few years. I 
am concerned that this money may not be there for us next year. If 
OMB's reaction to the House bill is any indicator, we have every reason 
to be worried.
  From all indications, we have only a few weeks left in this session 
and many pressing issues such as appropriations matters and the war on 
terrorism. But I want to send a clear message to my colleagues--put me 
in the camp that says let's act now on the farm bill.
  Mr. BYRD. I 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. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 1988 through 2016, En Bloc

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent the managers' amendment be 
considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate vote on passage 
of the bill, and, upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, 
requesting a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the 
part of the Senate, with no intervening action or debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, has the 
amendment been sent to the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is at the desk.
  Mr. BYRD. Has the amendment been read?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. BYRD. Could the clerk state the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr. 
     Cochran, proposes amendments numbered 1988 through 2016, en 
     bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:

                           Amendment No. 1988

       On page 78, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SUGAR MARKETING ASSESSMENT.

       Notwithstanding subsection (f) of section 156 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(f)), any 
     assessment imposed under that subsection for marketings of 
     raw cane sugar or beet sugar for the 2002 fiscal year shall 
     not be required to be remitted to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation before September 2, 2002.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1989

       On page 78, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       ``Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, shall provide financial 
     assistance from available funds from the Emergency Watershed 
     Protection Program in Arkansas, in an amount not to exceed 
     $0.4 million for completion of the current construction phase 
     of the Kuhn Bayou (Point Remove) Project.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1990

          (Purpose: To provide funding for rural development)

       Strike section 740 and insert the following new section:
       ``Sec. 740. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $3,000,000 shall be made available from funds under the rural 
     business and cooperative development programs of the Rural 
     Community Advancement Program for a grant for an integrated 
     ethanol plant, feedlot, and animal waste digestion unit, to 
     the extent matching funds from the Department of Energy are 
     provided if a commitment for such matching funds is made 
     prior to July 1, 2002: Provided, That such funds shall be 
     released to the project after the farmer-owned cooperative 
     equity is in place, and a formally executed commitment from a 
     qualified lender based upon receipt of necessary permits, 
     contract, and other appropriate documentation has been 
     secured by the project.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1991

       At the appropriate place in Title VIII, insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . (a) Temporary Use of Existing Payments to States 
     Table.--
       Notwithstanding section 101(a)(1) of the Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note), for the purpose of making 
     the first fiscal year's payments under section 102 of such 
     Act to eligible States and eligible counties, the full 
     payment amount for each eligible State and eligible county 
     shall be deemed to be equal to the full payment amount 
     calculated for that eligible state or eligible county in the 
     Forest Service document entitled ``P.L. 106-393, Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self-Determination Act'', dated July 
     31, 2001.
       (b) Revision of Table.--For the purpose of making payments 
     under section 102 of such Act to eligible States and eligible 
     counties of subsequent fiscal years, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall provide for the revision of the table 
     referred to in subsection (a) to accurately reflect the 
     average of the three highest 25-percent payments and safety 
     net payments made to eligible States for the fiscal years of 
     the eligibility period, as required by section 101(a)(1) of 
     such Act. If the revisions are not completed by the time 
     payments under section 102 of such Act are due to be made for 
     a subsequent fiscal year, the table referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall again be used for the purpose of making the 
     payments for that fiscal year. The Forest Service shall 
     provide the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and 
     the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee with a 
     report on the progress of the correction by March 1, 2002.
       (c) Additional Opt-Out Option.--Notwithstanding section 
     102(b)(2) of P.L. 106-393, if the revision of the table 
     referred to in subsection (a) results in a lower full payment 
     amount to a country that has elected under section 102(a)(2) 
     the full payment amount, then that county may revisit their 
     election under section 102(b)(1).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``eligible 
     State'', ``eligible county'', ``eligibility period'', ``25-
     period payment'', and ``safety net payments'' have the 
     meanings given such terms in sections 3 of such Act.
       (e) Treatment of Certain Mineral Leasing Receipts.--An 
     eligible county that elects under section 102(b) to receive 
     its share of an eligible State's full payment amount shall 
     continue to receive its share of any payments made to that 
     State from a lease for mineral resources issued by the 
     Secretary of Interior under the last paragraph under the 
     heading `FOREST SERVICE' in the Act of March 4, 1917 (Chapter 
     179; 16 U.S.C. 520).''
       (f) Section 6(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 
     Lands (30 U.S.C. 355(b)) is amended by inserting after the 
     first sentence the following new sentence: ``The preceeding 
     sentence shall also apply to any payment to a State derived 
     from a lease for mineral resources issued by the Secretary of 
     the Interior under the last paragraph under the heading 
     `FOREST SERVICE' in the Act of March 4, 1917 (Chapter 179; 16 
     U.S.C. 520).''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1992

(Purpose: To amend the definition of income in the Housing Act of 1949)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . ALASKA PERMANENT FUND.

       Section 501(b) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471) 
     is amended in paragraph (5)--
       (1) by striking ``(5)'' and inserting ``(5)(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) For purposes of this title, for fiscal years 2002 and 
     2003 the term ``income does not include dividends received 
     from the Alaska Permanent Fund by a person who was under the 
     age of 18 years when that person qualified for the 
     dividend.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1993

     (Purpose: To support funding for 1890 land-grant institutions)

       On page 13, line 18, strike beginning with ``$32,604,000'' 
     all down through and including ``West Virginia'' on line 20 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$34,604,000, 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''.
       On page 13, line 24, strike ``$137,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$135,492,000''.
       On page 17, line 13, strike beginning with ``$28,181,000'' 
     all down through and including ``West Virginia'' on line 15 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$31,181,000, 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''.
       On page 17, line 22, strike ``$15,021,000'' and insert 
     ``$11,529,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1994

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the National 4-H Program Centennial 
                              Initiative)

       On page 16, line 11 strike ``$275,940,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following: ``$275,940,000, of which 
     $3,600,000 may be used to carry out Public Law 107-19''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1995

       On page 40, line 19, insert the following: ``: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated by this Act to the 
     Rural Community Advancement Program for guaranteed business 
     and industry loans, funds may be transferred to direct 
     business and industry loans as deemed necessary by the 
     Secretary and with prior approval of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.''

[[Page 20774]]

     
                                  ____
                           amendment no. 1996

       (Purpose: To increase reserves of the Food Stamps Program)

       On page 52, line 17, strike ``$21,091,986,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$22,991,986,000''.
       On page 52, line 18, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$2,000,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1997

    (Purpose: To strike a limitation relating to the Kyoto Protocol)

       Strike section 727 and renumber subsequent sections as 
     appropriate.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1998

   (Purpose: To make West Virginia State College at Institute, West 
                     Virginia, an 1890 Institution)

       On page 78, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Hereafter, any provision of any Act of Congress 
     relating to colleges and universities eligible to receive 
     funds under the Act of August 30, 1890, including Tuskegee 
     University, shall apply to West Virginia State College at 
     Institute, West Virginia: Provided, That the Secretary may 
     waive the matching funds' requirement under section 1449 of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222d) for fiscal year 2002 for 
     West Virginia State College if the Secretary determines the 
     State of West Virginia will be unlikely to satisfy the 
     matching requirement.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1999

    (Purpose: To authorize a Natural Resources Conservation Service 
                           watershed project)

       On page 78, line 3, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service, shall provide financial and technical assistance to 
     the Tanana River bordering the Big Delta State Historical 
     Park.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2000

    (Purpose: To restrict the importation of certain fish and fish 
                               products)

       On page 78, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act to the Food and Drug Administration 
     shall be used to allow admission of fish or fish products 
     labeled wholly or in part as ``catfish'' unless the products 
     are taxonomically from the family Ictaluridae.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2001

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Sec.   . The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
     accept any unused funds transferred to the Alaska Railroad 
     Corporation for avalanche control and retransfer up to 
     $499,000 of such funds as a direct lump sum payment to the 
     City of Valdez to construct an avalanche control wall to 
     protect a public school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2002

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of funds previously appropriated to the Bureau of 
     Land Management under the heading `Wildland Fire Management,' 
     up to $5,000,000 is transferred to the Department of 
     Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, for reimbursement for crop 
     damage resulting from the Bureau's use of herbicides in the 
     State of Idaho. Provided, that nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to constitute an admission of liability in any 
     subsequent litigation with respect to the Bureau's use of 
     such herbicides.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2003

(Purpose: To clarify that emerging vegetation in water may be enrolled 
 in the pilot program for enrollment of wetland and buffer acreage in 
                       the conservation reserve)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PILOT PROGRAM FOR ENROLLMENT OF WETLAND AND BUFFER 
                   ACREAGE IN CONSERVATION RESERVE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1231(h)(4)(B) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(h)(4)(B)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(which may include emerging vegetation in water)'' after 
     ``vegetative cover''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1232(a)(4) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(4)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(which may include emerging vegetation in 
     water)'' after ``vegetative cover''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2004

      (Purpose: To provide assistance for certain specialty crops)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SPECIALTY CROPS.

       (a) Grading of Price-Support Tobacco.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than March 31, 2002, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall conduct a referendum among producers of 
     each kind of tobacco that is eligible for price support under 
     the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) to 
     determine whether the producers favor the mandatory grading 
     of the tobacco by the Secretary.
       (2) Mandatory grading.--If the Secretary determines that 
     mandatory grading of each kind of tobacco described in 
     paragraph (1) is favored by a majority of the producers 
     voting in the referendum, effective for the 2002 and 
     subsequent marketing years, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     all kinds of the tobacco are graded at the time of sale.
       (3) Judicial review.--A determination by the Secretary 
     under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.
       (b) Quota Reduction for Conservation Reserve Acreage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1236 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3836) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (a);
       (B) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively;
       (C) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
       (D) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1232(a)(5) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3832(a)(5)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 1236(d)'' and inserting ``section 
     1236(c)''.
       (3) Application.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply beginning with the 2002 crop.
       (c) Horse Breeder Loans.--
       (1) Definition of horse breeder.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``horse breeder'' means a person that, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, derives more than 70 percent of the 
     income of the person from the business of breeding, boarding, 
     raising, training, or selling horses, during the shorter of--
       (A) the 5-year period ending on January 1, 2001; or
       (B) the period the person has been engaged in such 
     business.
       (2) Loan authorization.--The Secretary shall make loans to 
     eligible horse breeders to assist the horse breeders for 
     losses suffered as a result of mare reproductive loss 
     syndrome.
       (3) Eligibility.--A horse breeder shall be eligible for a 
     loan under this subsection if the Secretary determines that, 
     as a result of mare reproductive loss syndrome--
       (A) during the period beginning January 1 and ending 
     October 1 of any of calendar years 2000, 2001, or 2002--
       (i) 30 percent or more of the mares owned by the horse 
     breeder failed to conceive, miscarried, aborted, or otherwise 
     failed to produce a live healthy foal; or
       (ii) 30 percent or more of the mares boarded on a farm 
     owned, operated, or leased by the horse breeder failed to 
     conceive, miscarried, aborted, or otherwise failed to produce 
     a live healthy foal;
       (B) the horse breeder is unable to meet the financial 
     obligations, or pay the ordinary and necessary expenses, of 
     the horse breeder incurred in connection with breeding, 
     boarding, raising, training, or selling horses; and
       (C) the horse breeder is not able to obtain sufficient 
     credit elsewhere, in accordance with subtitle C of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961 et 
     seq.).
       (4) Amount.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amount of 
     a loan made to a horse breeder under this subsection shall be 
     determined by the Secretary on the basis of the amount of 
     losses suffered by the horse breeder, and the financial needs 
     of the horse breeder, as a result of mare reproductive loss 
     syndrome.
       (B) Maximum amount.--The amount of a loan made to a horse 
     breeder under this subsection shall not exceed the maximum 
     amount of an emergency loan under section 324(a) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1964(a)).
       (5) Term.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term for 
     repayment of a loan made to a horse breeder under this 
     subsection shall be determined by the Secretary based on the 
     ability of the horse breeder to repay the loan.
       (B) Maximum term.--The term of a loan made to a horse 
     breeder under this subsection shall not exceed 20 years.
       (6) Interest rate.--The interest rate for a loan made to a 
     horse breeder under this subsection shall be the interest 
     rate for emergency loans prescribed under section 324(b)(1) 
     of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1964(b)(1)).
       (7) Security.--A loan to a horse breeder under this 
     subsection shall be made on the security required for 
     emergency loans under section 324(d) of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1964(d)).
       (8) Application.--To be eligible to obtain a loan under 
     this subsection, a horse breeder shall submit an application 
     for the loan to the Secretary not later than September 30, 
     2002.
       (9) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out this subsection 
     using funds made available to make emergency loans under 
     subtitle C of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.).
       (10) Termination.--The authority provided by this 
     subsection to make a loan terminates effective September 30, 
     2003.

[[Page 20775]]

     
                                  ____
                           AMENDMENT NO. 2005

(Purpose: To improve crop insurance coverage for sweet potatoes during 
                           fiscal year 2002)

       On page 78, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 7  . SWEET POTATO CROP INSURANCE.

       During fiscal year 2002, subsection (a)(2) of section 508 
     of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) shall be 
     applied as though the term ``and potatoes'' read as follows: 
     ``, potatoes, and sweet potatoes''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2006

 (Purpose: To provide funds for repairs to the Beltsville Agricultural 
               Research Center in the State of Maryland)

       At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 7  . BELTSVILLE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER, MARYLAND.

       Within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall submit a reprogramming request 
     to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to address 
     the $21.7 million in tornado damages incurred at the Henry A. 
     Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2007

       At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . CITRUS CANKER ERADICATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 810 of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 1549A-52) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to subsection (e), the''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``2001'' and inserting 
     ``2002''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments in subsection (a) shall 
     take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2001.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2008

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Sec.  . From the amount appropriated to the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service, $300,000 shall be provided 
     to monitor and prevent Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome in 
     cooperation with the University of Kentucky.


                           amendment no. 2009

       Amend section 306(a)(20) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(20)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Rural broadband.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     regulatory commissions in states with communities without 
     dial-up internet access to establish a competitively neutral 
     grant program to telecommunications carriers that establish 
     facilities and services which, in the commission's 
     determination, will result in the long-term availability to 
     rural communities in such state of affordable broadband 
     telecommunications services which can be used for the 
     provision of high speed internet access.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2010

       On page 52, line 24 after the comma, strike ``not to'' and 
     all through page 53, line 2 up to the colon and insert the 
     following: ``not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be used to 
     purchase bison meat for the FDPIR from producer owned 
     cooperative organizations''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2011

       On page 10, line 24, strike ``$1,004,738,000'' and insert 
     ``$999,438,000''.
       On page 32, line 21, strike ``$802,454,000'' and insert 
     ``$807,454,000''.
       On page 33, line 20, after ``(16 U.S.C. 590e-2)'' insert 
     ``: Provided further, That $5,000,000 shall be available to 
     carry out a pilot program in cooperation with the Department 
     of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to determine migratory 
     bird harvest, including population monitoring, harvest 
     information, and field operations''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2012

(Purpose: To provide funding for the purchase of conservation easements 
                       in the State of Kentucky)

       On page 78, line 3, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Of the funds made available to the Conservation 
     Reserve Enhancement Program for the State of Kentucky, 
     $490,000, and of the funds made available for competitive 
     research grants, $230,000, shall be made available to 
     purchase conservation easements or other interests in land to 
     not exceed 235 acres in Adair, Green and Taylor counties, 
     Kentucky in accordance with the Farmland Protection 
     Program.''
       On page 13, line 24, strike ``$137,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof, ``$136,770,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2013

 (Purpose: To enhance FDA enforcement of the Dietary Supplement Health 
                       and Education Act of 1994)

       Amend page 57, line 7, by increasing the sum by $1 million; 
     and
       Amend page 57, line 18, by increasing the sum by $1 
     million.
       Amend page 60, line 22, by adding the following after the 
     word ``offices:'': Provided further: $1 million to the Center 
     for Food Safety and Nutrition to enhance enforcement of 
     requirements under the Dietary Supplement Health and 
     Education Act of 1994 related to the accuracy of product 
     labeling, and the truthfulness and substantiation of claims.
       Amend page 30 line 4: reduce the figure by $1 million.

                                  ____
                           amendment no. 2014

  (Purpose: To set aside funding for a generic drug public education 
                               campaign)

       On page 59, line 25, after the semicolon, insert ``and of 
     which not less than $500,000 shall be available for a generic 
     drug public education campaign;''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2015

 (Purpose: To provide a grant to Oklahoma State University to develop 
    chemical and biological sensors, including food safety sensors)

       On page 13, line 21, of which $500,000 should be for a 
     grant for Oklahoma State University and its industrial 
     partners to develop chemical and biological sensors, 
     including chemical food safety sensors based on 
     microoptoelectronic devices and techniques (such as laser 
     diode absorption and cavity-ring-down spectroscopy with 
     active laser illumination);''.
       On page 13, line 24, decrease the amount by $500,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2016

       On page 13, line 24, decrease the amount by the amount by 
     $500,000.
       On page 13, line 21, increase the amount by $500,000 and 
     insert ``of which $500,000 is for the Environmental 
     Biotechnology initiative at the University of Rhode Island''.


                           Amendment No. 1999

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the catfish industry in the United States 
is being victimized by a fish product from Vietnam that is labeled as 
farm-raised catfish. Since 1997, the volume of Vietnamese frozen fish 
filets has increased from 500,000 pounds to over 7 million pounds per 
year.
  U.S. Catfish farm production, which is located primarily in 
Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana, accounts for 50 percent 
of the total value of all U.S. aquaculture production. Catfish farmers 
in the Mississippi Delta region have spent $50 million to establish a 
market for North American Catfish.
  The Vietnamese fish industry is penetrating the United States fish 
market by labeling fish products to create the impression they are 
farm-raised catfish. The Vietnamese ``Basa'' fish that are being 
imported from Vietnam are grown in cages along the Mekong River Delta. 
Unlike other imported fish, Basa fish are imported as an intended 
substitute for U.S. farm-raised catfish, and in some instances, their 
product packaging imitates U.S brands and logos. this false labeling of 
Vietnamese Basa fish is misleading American consumers at supermarkets 
and restaurants.
  According to a taxonomy analysis from the National Warmwater 
Aquaculture Center, the Vietnamese Basa fish is not even of the same 
family or species as the North American Channel Catfish.
  This amendment will prevent the Food and Drug Administration from 
allowing admission of fish or fish products not taxonomically in the 
same family as North American farm-raised catfish. U.S. catfish farmers 
have invested millions of dollars to develop a market for the North 
American catfish. This amendment will help ensure that fish products 
are properly identified so that consumers are not deceived by the 
improper labeling.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to support an amendment to 
the fiscal 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill to address the 
emergency needs of the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural 
Research Center (BARC) and ensure that the critical work done at this 
world-renowned facility can carry on without delay.
  In the early evening of September 24, BARC, the United States 
Department of Agriculture's flagship research center, was severely 
impacted by a tornado which had just ripped through the University of 
Maryland College Park, killing two students and contributing to the 
death of a volunteer firefighter. While thankfully none of the 500 
employees working on BARC's stricken western campus were injured, the 
facility itself sustained significant damage.
  All 90 of BARC's greenhouses, housing innovative and important 
research were damaged, with 40,000 square feet of greenhouse space 
being totally destroyed and another 90,000 square feet receiving severe 
to moderate damage. Each of the 15 major buildings on

[[Page 20776]]

BARC's West-campus suffered roof damage and many of these lost their 
windows, leading to rain damage in laboratories and offices. In 
addition, scientists lost over $3 million in equipment and reagents. In 
fact, in one newly renovated building, hazardous chemical spills 
precluded security windows against the rain or the use of emergency 
generators to run freezers, exacerbating the loss of experimental 
materials. As a result, critical research projects were set back from 
six months to as much as three years.
  On Monday, I toured the facility with BARC Director Dr. Phyllis 
Johnson to see the tornado's damage firsthand. Nearly a month after 
this disaster, the impact of the storm is still terribly evident.
  My amendment directs the Secretary of Agriculture, within 30 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, to submit a reprogramming 
request to address the $21.7 million in damages at BARC. The majority 
of this funding, $12,250,000, will be used for greenhouse replacement 
and repair. The remaining funds will contribute to a variety of 
infrastructure needs, including roof repair, electrical and mechanical 
systems repair, and replacement of critical lab equipment and reagents. 
This funding is essential to allowing the scientists and researchers at 
BARC to continue to carry on BARC's mission of conducting research to 
develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high 
national priority, including ensuring high-quality, safe food, 
sustaining a competitive agricultural economy, and providing economic 
opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as a whole. 
In my view, it is critical that the staff at BARC have the tools and 
facilities to be able to continue this vital mission, one that benefits 
all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.


                           amendment no. 2013

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for 
the amendment that Senator Hatch and I are offering today.
  The Harkin-Hatch amendment provides $1 million to Center for Food 
Services and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration to 
enhance enforcement of requirements under the Dietary Supplement Health 
and Education Act related to the accuracy of product labeling and the 
truthfulness and substantiation of claims.
  This is an area of extreme importance to American consumers, 
literally millions of whom regularly take dietary supplements to 
maintain their health.
  I was extremely proud to author the Dietary Supplement Health and 
Education Act with Senator Hatch back in 1994. I think this law has 
helped consumers reap the tremendous benefits of safe dietary 
supplements that are doing to much so improve public health.
  When we passed DSHEA unanimously, we noted that improving the health 
status of American citizens ranked at the top of the government's 
national priorities. Never was that statement more true.
  Over the past decade, the importance of nutrition and the benefits of 
dietary supplements to health promotion and disease prevention have 
been documented increasingly in scientific studies.
  And, we should not forget that healthy lifestyles, including proper 
nutrition, can mitigate the need for expensive medical procedures.
  Almost daily, we are seeing exciting new reports about the health 
benefits that dietary supplements offer our citizens.
  For example, a recent study showed that the specific combination of 
vitamins C, E, and beta-carotene, and the minerals zinc and copper, can 
slow age-related macular degeneration, an eye disease that afflicts 
some eight million Americans and is a leading cause of visual 
impairment, blindness, and loss of independence in those over age 65.
  According to the Alliance for Aging Research, the U.S. currently 
spends more than $26 billion annually in additional health care costs 
for people over age 65 who lose their ability to live independently. 
Obviously, slowing this loss of independence due to blindness for even 
one year not only dramatically improves quality of life for the aging 
population, but it can save the Federal government potentially billions 
of dollars.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment as well, 
and just wanted to follow up with a few comments on what Senator Harkin 
has just said.
  Seven years ago, my colleague from Iowa and I joined with then-
Representative Bill Richardson to enact this law, the Dietary 
Supplement Health and Education Act, that set up a rational, consumer-
friendly framework for the regulation of dietary supplements. Our 
colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, joined us in this effort as the 
original cosponsor of our bill.
  Since that time, dietary supplements are being integrated more and 
more into mainstream medicine, a fact of which I am proud.
  By any measure, a majority of Americans regularly rely on dietary 
supplements to enhance and maintain their healthy lifestyles. A study 
by Prevention Magazine last year found that approximately 151 million 
consumers currently take dietary supplement products. A study this year 
found that the most common reason consumers use these vitamins, 
minerals, herbs and amino acids is for overall health and general well-
being.
  I am aware that an April, 2001, study from the Journal of Clinical 
Endocrinology and Metabolism demonstrated that vitamin D and calcium 
supplementation plays an important role in reducing systolic blood 
pressure and maintaining thyroid hormone levels.
  In addition, a January, 2001 Lancet article showed that patients with 
knee osteo-arthritis who took glucosamine supplements reduced painful 
and often disabling symptoms.
  Not only are dietary supplements an essential component of a healthy 
lifestyle, I believe, but they represent a vital industry in our 
country as well. In my home state of Utah, the dietary supplement 
industry has grown to an estimated $2 billion in annual sales; and one 
estimate I have seen places the national level at $12 billion.
  I thank the Senator for allowing me to add those compelling facts.
  We have become increasingly alarmed over reports that unsafe or 
mislabeled dietary supplement products are being marketed.
  We have also been concerned about the increasing use of so-called 
``performance-enhancing products'' by our youth. Many of these products 
are being marketed as dietary supplements, although it is not clear 
they fall within the legal definition of dietary supplement.
  I think the Aging Committee, under the very capable leadership of 
Senators John Breaux and Larry Craig, did us all a great service in 
pointing up some of the areas where we need improvement.
  Mr. HARKIN. There is no question that there are some problems here, 
but I believe the majority of dietary supplements are upstanding 
products that are safe and accurately labeled. What we hope to convince 
our colleagues, though, is that problems in the marketplace are largely 
a failure of enforcement, and not of the law.
  I want to make clear to our colleagues that the bill we passed 
unanimously in both houses--seven years ago--and I might add that the 
Senate passed it unanimously, not once, but twice contains all the 
tools the government needs to address these concerns, as we will 
outline.
  But just don't take my word for it. The Commissioner of Food and 
Drugs in the Clinton Administration--Jane Henney, a physician who we 
all respect a great deal--has assured the Congress on more than one 
occasion that she believed the law provided her with adequate authority 
to act against unsafe or mislabeled products. Commissioner Henney 
assured me both publicly and privately that she was confident the law 
is sufficient to allow the FDA to act against any bad actors in the 
dietary supplement marketplace. It might be beneficial for us to review 
some of the authorities that the FDA has.
  First, the law allows the Food and Drug Administration to deem any 
dietary supplement product adulterated if

[[Page 20777]]

the label fails to list any of the ingredients contained within and the 
quantities of those ingredients. This provision is contained within 
section 403(s)(1) and (2) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
  If a product is adulterated, it cannot be legally sold. So, a 
mislabeled dietary supplement product is, quite simply, illegal.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me add one point. Many of us were disturbed over 
reports that Olympic athletes or prospective Olympic athletes became 
disqualified after they took ``banned substances" which were alleged to 
have been dietary supplements that contained substances not listed on 
the bottle.
  I have no way of verifying those reports. What I can say is this. The 
International Olympic Committee sets the rules for what products may be 
taken by athletes. This is not a matter of U.S. law. If the IOC wanted 
to ban orange juice, it is perfectly within its rights.
  But, obviously, athletes--as with all consumers--should be able to 
rest assured that they know what they are ingesting.
  I was dismayed to read last week that the I.O.C. warned athletes to 
avoid dietary supplements because of what it called ``lax quality 
control and labeling.'' This is a situation that should not be 
occurring, and our amendment today will help rectify that situation.
  The law is not inadequate in this area. It provides consumers with 
the assurance that they will know what they are buying. As the Senator 
from Iowa just said, amendments to U.S. law made by DSHEA make explicit 
that dietary supplement containers must be labeled accurately as to 
their contents.
  The principal way that the FDA enforces this provision is through its 
Good Manufacturing Practice standards, or ``GMPs,'' which FDA 
inspectors use to make certain that manufacturing plants adhere to 
rigid guidelines for safe and sanitary processing of foods, including 
dietary supplements.
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me follow up on that. The second tool DSHEA provided 
to FDA is the authority to promulgate new GMPs specifically for dietary 
supplements. Those regulations have been in development for the past 
several years, a source of great frustration to me and the Senator from 
Utah as well.
  We have written, called, and implored the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Department of Health and Human Services to release these 
regulations, which we understand have been ready in near-final form for 
almost a year.
  It is past time those regulations were issued.
  Mr. HATCH. I want to add my strong concern about this as well. I 
don't know what else we can do to free up these regulations. They are 
an essential consumer protection of the law and they should be allowed 
to go into effect.
  Another concern we have heard is that there are products on the 
market that are making false or misleading claims. That could be true 
for any product regulated by the FDA, be it a drug, a cosmetic, a food, 
or a medical device.
  In fact, I recall vividly the 1993 hearing that the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee held on dietary supplements. Then-Commissioner 
David Kessler came up and testified for the FDA. He spread out a table-
full of products he believed made non-truthful claims. The reason I 
remember this so well was that I was so angry the Commissioner had 
brought this ``show and tell'' display to the Congress rather than take 
action against the products.
  The question I asked him then remains operative today. If the FDA 
thinks there are products on the market that are inaccurately labeled, 
then why doesn't it remove them from the market?
  Mr. HARKIN. So that there was absolutely no question about the FDA's 
authority in this area, during the debate on DSHEA we made clear that 
the FDA maintained its ability to act against false and misleading 
claims under section 343(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
Act. This is the third important tool FDA maintains to assure consumers 
that they are taking safe and accurately labeled dietary supplement 
products.
  I worked very hard to make certain that we provided the FDA with 
adequate authority in this area, but that we did not open up the 
opportunity for the agency to twist and torture the law as they had 
done in years past.
  Mr. HATCH. Another concern related to the accuracy of claims is that 
of the manufacturer's ability to substantiate the claims made. Health 
claims made with respect to a product's ability to treat, mitigate or 
cure disease must be pre-approved by the FDA under a ``significant 
scientific agreement'' standard mandated by the Nutrition Labeling and 
Education Act (NLEA).
  Claims not subject to this preapproval, that is, claims which 
describe the product's effect on the structure or function of the body, 
must be substantiated under the fourth tool we provided the FDA in 
DSHEA. Under section 343(r)(6)(B) of the FFD&CA, manufacturers must be 
able to substantiate the accuracy of their claims made. That is an 
important consumer protection.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is amazing to me, and a complete indication of how 
little-enforced DSHEA is, that the FDA has apparently never invoked 
this section of the law. We hope to correct that deficiency with our 
amendment today.
  Mr. HATCH. I mention another important consumer protection included 
in the law. Questions have also been raised about the safety of 
supplements in the marketplace. In DSHEA, we added a fifth tool to 
FDA's arsenal--section 402(f)(1)(A), which deems that a dietary 
supplement is adulterated if it presents a significant or unreasonable 
risk of illness or injury under the conditions of use recommended or 
suggested in labeling. If no conditions of use are suggested or 
recommended in the labeling, then the FDA could act against a 
supplement that presented a significant or unreasonable risk of illness 
or injury under ordinary conditions or use.
  This safety standard was carefully developed in close consultation 
with Senator Kennedy and Congressmen John Dingell and Henry Waxman, all 
of whom worked with us to assure we had the strongest possible measure.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I could just amplify on that. To address any lingering 
concerns our colleagues might have that the FDA did not have adequate 
authority to act against an unsafe supplement, we provided an 
additional sixth tool to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We 
gave the Secretary emergency authority to act against any supplement he 
believes poses an ``imminent hazard'' to public health.
  Mr. HATCH. Indeed. That authority, contained within section 
402(f)(1)(C) of the FFD&CA, allows the Secretary to act immediately, no 
questions asked, to remove a product from the market if he believes 
there is a safety problem. Similar emergency authority is contained 
within the drug law.
  I must take this opportunity to reject the many press accounts, which 
have so irresponsibly and inaccurately alleged that the Dietary 
Supplement Health and Education Act ``deregulated'' dietary 
supplements, or falsely stated that ``FDA's hands were tied'' by our 
Act. Nothing is further from the truth, as we have just explained in 
outlining all the authorities provided to FDA to make certain dietary 
supplements are safe and accurately labeled.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am in complete agreement. It astounds me that we could 
add so many new authorities to the law and have it called 
``deregulation.'' I am affronted by any suggestion that the majority of 
both bodies of Congress could have endangered the public health in a 
way these news reports have falsely claimed. That simply was not the 
case, and I hope whomever is planting all these inaccuracies will stop.
  Mr. HATCH. So, with all of these tools in FDA's arsenal, legitimate 
questions have been raised about why unsafe or mislabeled products are 
being sold. Indeed, many of us are asking, ``What is the problem? Why 
are these products still on the market?''
  Mr. HARKIN. Implementation of this Act has not been a top priority of 
the Food and Drug Administration.

[[Page 20778]]


  Mr. HATCH. I did a little research on this, and I found some 
information which may be of interest to my colleague, since he is the 
very capable chair of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee.
  It might interest my colleagues to learn that the FDA, the 
government's most important consumer protection agency since it 
regulates over one-quarter of each dollar in goods sold, is severely at 
a disadvantage when its funding is compared to its sister public health 
agencies.
  For the past three fiscal years, the FDA's appropriation has grown an 
average of 6.9 percent.
  By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control's appropriation has 
grown an average of 12.5 percent; in fact, it grew 15.5 percent between 
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
  The National Institutes of Health's budget has grown an average of 
14.5 percent.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of this, and this is a situation we must work 
to rectify. Despite the best efforts of those of us who serve on the 
Appropriations Committee, the FDA is not getting the budget it 
deserves.
  In fact, Senator Hatch and I had hoped to use our amendment as a 
vehicle for adding funds to the FDA's budget, but we were reluctant to 
divert funds from the many agriculture programs funded within this 
bill.
  For that reason, we are offering this amendment today, in the hopes 
that it will focus FDA's efforts on better enforcement of the law.
  Mr. HATCH. It is our hope that the House-Senate conferees may be able 
to work to add funds for dietary supplement enforcement, so that other 
programs of the FDA are not penalized through addition of our language.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is correct.
  Mr. President, so what our amendment does today is help the FDA make 
enforcement of DSHEA a top priority.
  I want to emphasize as Senator Hatch did that the vast majority of 
dietary supplements are marketed safely and legally, by manufacturers 
who care deeply about the public and its health. However, for the few 
bad actors who are giving industry a bad name, who are taking advantage 
of a trusting public, I say ``it is time to get tough.''
  In so doing, we admonish the agency not to wield the heavy hand it 
did for over three decades, the over-bearing attitude which led 
Congress to pass DSHEA so overwhelmingly in the first place.
  Mr. HATCH. There is a reason that over two-thirds of both the House 
and Senate cosponsored our legislation, and that reason is quite 
simple:
  Many of us recall FDA's efforts to classify vitamins as over-the-
counter drugs if they exceeded 150 percent of the Recommended Daily 
Allowance, an effort which would have rendered 200 milligrams of 
vitamin C a drug. Congress rejected that with the Proxmire amendment in 
1976.
  More recently, many of us recall FDA's efforts to ban the supplement 
black currant oil by saying it was an unsafe food additive. The FDA's 
logic was that the black current oil was added to a food--the gelatin 
capsule in which it was contained. The Seventh Circuit rejected this 
logic, terming the FDA's scheme ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The First 
Circuit also described FDA's approach as ``nonsensical.''
  It was nonsensical, and we are all grateful that wiser heads have 
prevailed since.
  So, let me make clear that the intent of our amendment is not to 
forearm the FDA so it can embark on another of these fairy-tale 
journeys, but rather to help it take enforcement actions against those 
who are clearly violative of three aspects of the law: whether products 
are accurately labeled; whether claims are truthful and non-misleading; 
and whether claims are substantiated.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is our hope that the funding provided in our amendment 
will allow the FDA to devote additional staff to this effort. In so 
doing, we will be making great strides toward assuring Americans--be 
they farmers in Iowa, athletes in Utah, stay-at-home moms throughout 
the U.S., or even members of Congress--that the dietary supplement 
products they take are safe and accurately labeled.
  Mr. HATCH. The FDA simply has to get serious about enforcing this 
law. We cannot allow the very few products of poor quality to cast a 
negative shadow over the rest of the industry, which is so law-abiding.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to recognize the great efforts of my 
partner in this endeavor--Senator Harkin. I am appreciative of his hard 
work here, and the fact that we can count on him for non-partisan 
leadership on behalf of both his constituents and the American 
consumers.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am appreciative of the Senator from Utah's efforts as 
well. It is no secret here that he is the world's number one proponent 
of dietary supplements. He has done an effective job of helping promote 
the public health through safe dietary supplements and I am pleased we 
have joined together today in this amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, did the unanimous consent agreement adopt 
the managers' amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, does anybody here know 
what is in the managers' amendment? Could we have at least a brief 
summary from the managers as to what is in the managers' amendment? How 
many amendments are there? How many?
  Mr. KOHL. Do you want me to read off several?
  Mr. McCAIN. How many are there?
  Mr. KOHL. There are about 35.
  Mr. REID. Has the managers' amendment been agreed to yet?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but 
we should not be proud of this way of doing business, my friends. 
Thirty-five amendments that nobody has seen, except the two managers, 
that I know of; maybe someone else has, but I seriously doubt it. 
Thirty-five amendments. No Member has seen them. They may be technical 
in nature; they may be very substantive in nature.
  I tell my colleagues, I will not agree to this again. We have several 
more appropriations bills. I will not agree to this again without at 
least knowing what the amendments are.
  I remove my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1988 through 2016) were agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. 
Hutchison) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 315 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell

[[Page 20779]]


     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Ensign
     Gregg
     Kyl
     McCain
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Bunning
     Hutchison
     Stevens
  The bill (H.R. 2330) was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank all staff who worked so hard to 
make this bill possible and to assist Senators during the deliberation 
of the bill, particularly those who have worked as members of my staff 
on this side of the aisle for the Appropriations Committee, 
Subcommittee on Agriculture: Rebecca Davies, who is the chief clerk; 
Martha Scott Poindexter; and Rachelle Schroeder.
  I also want to commend a member of my personal staff who was on the 
floor and contributed in a very important way to the work on this bill, 
Hunter Moorhead.
  Without their good assistance it would not have been possible to have 
such a good work product as this bill represents.
  It was a pleasure working for the first time with the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin as chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kohl. 
He did an excellent job, he and his fine staff, particularly Mr. 
Fountain, with whom we have worked for several years, and the others.
  We appreciate very much their cooperation and their excellent 
professional assistance.
  I hope Senators appreciate the fact that without the staff we have, 
their talent, their hard work, and their experience, it would have been 
impossible to get to the point we did tonight for final passage of this 
bill. For that, I am very grateful to all of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, is the Senate in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
  Pursuant to the previous order, the Senate insists on its amendments, 
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses, and the Chair appoints Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, 
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, 
and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________