[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22663-22669]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying 
H.R. 2330, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2330), making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agency 
     programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 
     having met have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the 
     same with an amendment, signed by a majority of the conferees 
     on the part of both Houses.

  (The report is printed in the House Proceedings of the Record of 
November 9, 2001, page H7962.)
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes of debate on the conference report with the time to be equally 
divided and controlled.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate, the 
conference report on H.R. 2330, the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002. The House 
approved this measure day before yesterday, and we need to take swift 
action in the Senate on final passage in order for the President to 
sign this conference report into law as soon as possible.
  This conference report includes $75.8 billion in total spending for 
fiscal year 2002. These funds will be used to support programs and 
services of the United States Department of Agriculture--except for the 
Forest Service--the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission. Of this total, $16 billion is discretionary 
spending, and this amount is within the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation.
  As I have stated before, this is not simply an ``agricultural'' bill. 
This bill not only supports the rural sector, it supports all sectors. 
It supports families in the cities; it supports inspectors along our 
borders; it supports the availability of drugs and vaccines to respond 
to the challenges of today and whatever tomorrow may bring. I support 
this conference report, and I hope all Senators will do the same.

[[Page 22664]]

  Again, I thank Senator Cochran, ranking member of this subcommittee, 
and his staff for their tireless and indispensable help this year. I 
also thank my staff and all people who have helped bring us to this 
final stage of the appropriations process.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized 
for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend from 
Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, to present for the Senate's approval the 
conference report on H.R. 2330. This conference agreement provides 
total new budget authority of $75.8 billion for the programs and 
activities administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, 
the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission. These include programs that provide housing opportunities 
for low and moderate-income residents of rural America, that protect 
our Nation's food supplies against pests and diseases, assure the 
safety and efficacy of drugs and medical products, and provide 
nutrition assistance for America's children and working families.
  This is the seventh conference report of the 13 regular fiscal year 
2002 appropriations bills to be presented to the Senate this year for 
approval. This conference agreement has been approved by the House of 
Representatives by a substantial vote in that body, and Senate passage 
of the conference report today would be the final step necessary to 
send this bill to the President for his signature. I am hopeful the 
Senate will approve the conference report and give our committee a vote 
of confidence in our efforts to resolve successfully the differences 
that existed between the Senate and House-passed bills.
  We think we defended the Senate's interests aggressively, and we 
worked out a compromise that will serve the interests not only of the 
two bodies but of the American people as well.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition? Time is running.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under whose time does the Senator seek recognition?
  Mr. CRAIG. Under that of the ranking minority member, Senator 
Cochran.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. From Senator Cochran. Very well, the 
Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Kohl, and Senator Cochran, for the tremendous cooperation they 
have extended to me and Idaho agriculture as we have considered this 
very important appropriations bill. I am pleased the conference report 
is now before us.
  We all know that agriculture over the last 4 or 5 years has had a 
very difficult time, especially at the production level, in finding a 
commodity with which the producer could break even or make a profit. 
That has certainly been true in my State of Idaho. While that has gone 
on, there have been opportunities to improve the research capability 
and certainly the conference report we have before us represents that. 
All of our Nation's agricultural production has historically benefited 
from Federal dollars that have flowed into research at our colleges and 
universities that ultimately produce hybrid crops, better techniques, 
better conservation, better use of water and soil. All of those things 
in combination make agriculture as great as it is in our country today.
  I am always amazed at the abundance we have produced as a result of a 
private-State-Federal partnership. It can at times be a problem, too, 
and that explains part of where we are today. With phenomenal abundance 
and availability of commodities, commodity prices in the last several 
years have been at about their all-time lows in relation to the cost of 
production. As a result of that, certainly this appropriating 
subcommittee and the authorizing Committee of Agriculture here in the 
Senate, along with the House of Representatives, has made every effort 
to assure that production agriculture at least had a safety net so we 
would not lose this valuable part of the American economy.
  I know our consumers oftentimes take for granted when they go to the 
supermarket, and go to the food shelf in that supermarket, finding such 
an abundance at such a low price. They oftentimes assume it is always 
going to be there. Very seldom do we have the ability to look behind at 
the thousands and thousands of American producers and processors that 
provide that high-quality food to the American consumer. This 
legislation assists in that important part of the American lifestyle 
and the American economy.
  Also, as agriculture has dwindled, and especially in my State of 
Idaho where we have seen Federal policy and national attitudes over the 
last two or three decades that would suggest we ought not log or we 
ought not mine or we ought not graze because somehow it damages the 
environment, we have seen rural economies dwindle, unemployment rise, 
and many of our rural areas, which are farm and resource communities, 
in dire straits.
  In this package is also a rural economic development component that 
is increasingly important to rural America. As agriculture struggles, 
many of the other associated service industries, and many of the 
industries that were very typical in my State, have suffered even more. 
Many of them have shut down. Over the last decade, and in part because 
of the philosophy of the former administration, we have seen an 80-
percent decline in logging on public lands. That has cost Idaho, and 
other States like Idaho, tens of thousands of jobs. As a result, 
unemployment in those areas has grown to 12 percent and 14 percent.
  Unemployment means people out of work. It means no food on the table. 
Oftentimes it means fewer clothes for the children. It means strife 
within the family because of the economic circumstances they are 
experiencing. To be able to turn that around is part of my job. But it 
is also part of the job of the Congress, to have sensitivity toward 
economic development of the kind that is, in fact, represented here as 
we strive to fund U.S. Forest Service programs, USDA programs that will 
benefit rural communities of the kind that make up a very large part of 
my State.
  I thought it important and appropriate this morning that I come to 
the floor to thank the chairman, Senator Kohl, and the ranking member, 
Senator Cochran, for the cooperation and the sensitivity they have 
shown. Certainly, the chairman of the full committee, who is now the 
Presiding Officer here in the Senate, has always had an eye to rural 
America. I appreciate that because his State of West Virginia is much 
like mine. It is built on resources. It is built on mining. It is built 
on the rural lifestyle.
  That has been and remains a major part of the American economy. This 
bill represents that sensitivity, and I thank them for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Byrd has up to 20 minutes.

[[Page 22665]]


  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, Senator Kohl, who is also 
chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee. I thank him 
for his good work on behalf of the people of his State, for his good 
work on behalf of the people of my State, and for his good work on 
behalf of the people of the Nation. He is an apt student of public 
service and of the legislative process. He is one of my favorites. When 
I speak in that term, I think of the legislative process and I think of 
this institution, the Senate.
  I also thank Senator Cochran, who is the ranking member of the 
subcommittee. I thank him for his service to the Nation and to his 
people and to my people--to our people. Senator Cochran likewise does 
good work for the Nation and for the committee. He is a very able 
member of the Appropriations Committee.
  This conference report includes $75.8 billion in total spending for 
fiscal year 2002. This amount is $3 million below the level passed by 
the Senate. Of the total amount provided, $16.0 billion is 
discretionary spending, and this amount is within the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation. This conference does not include one cent--not one 
copper penny--of emergency spending.
  This conference report supports programs related to agricultural 
research, conservation, rural development, promotion of international 
trade, and many other traditional programs for which the agriculture 
bill has become so well known. This conference report also supports 
domestic food programs such as Food Stamps and the Women, Infants, and 
Children, WIC, program, as well as the other food safety and public 
health programs of the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies. 
The programs supported by this conference report serve the most basic 
of needs of the American people in nearly every facet of their lives.
  On September 11--another day that will always live in history, a date 
that will not be a footnote in the annals of mankind--the American 
people were reminded of the importance of programs related to public 
health, food supply, and food safety. These programs have long been a 
part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, and they are continued, 
and strengthened, by this bill.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference report contains a 
number of provisions related to the treatment of animals--those 
creatures that cannot speak for themselves, those creatures without 
which mankind would perish. We should think of them, and we do think of 
them. There are two principle underlying statutes that provide 
authority to agencies under the jurisdiction of this conference report 
on the subject of animal treatment. They are the Animal Welfare Act and 
the Humane Slaughter Act.
  The Animal Welfare Act was first authorized by Public Law 89-544, the 
Act of August 24, 1966, and is today carried out by USDA's Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The primary purpose of this 
Act was to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the 
transportation, sale, and handling of dogs, cats, and certain other 
animals intended to be used for purposes of research or 
experimentation, and for other purposes. Think of the service that 
those animals render to mankind. And they don't do it without a 
sacrifice to themselves. Today, in addition, this act is used to 
regulate individual dog breeders and handlers and larger operations 
such as circuses and zoos around the nation.
  The Humane Slaughter Act was originally passed in 1958, and requires 
that animals be rendered insensitive to pain before they are killed in 
a slaughterhouse. This Act is today carried out by USDA's Food Safety 
Inspection Service, FSIS.
  For a number of years, the level of funding at APHIS for inspections 
and enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act had been held stagnant. More 
recently, this Congress has been able to provide significant increases 
for these activities, including $2.5 million provided through an 
amendment I offered in the supplemental appropriations bill that was 
signed into law on July 20, 2001.
  In this conference report, additional increases are provided for 
these purposes. In this conference report that we are debating today, I 
say, additional increases are provided for these purposes.
  This conference report includes an increase of $2.4 million above the 
President's request for animal welfare inspections and the conferees 
have directed the agency to hire additional inspectors and support 
staff to increase the overall number of inspections, and to conduct 
more repeat inspections of facilities found to be in noncompliance with 
the act. Let's go back and look at them again, if they are not 
complying with the act. This year's appropriation of $15,167,000--in 
addition to funds made available in the supplemental--represents an 
increase of 60 percent since fiscal year 1999. So, at last, we are 
paying more attention--and we ought to pay more attention--to these 
animals and to the enforcement of the law in regard to their slaughter.
  Increased inspections are logically followed by increased demand for 
investigations and enforcement. This conference report includes an 
increase of $1,852,000--that is in addition to funds made available in 
the supplemental--for APHIS investigation and enforcement activities. 
In addition, Statement of Managers language directs the agency to hire 
additional inspectors to service the backlog of animal care 
investigations. I would like to mention that the conference committee 
became aware of reported violations of the Animal Welfare Act regarding 
treatment of polar bears by a traveling circus, and Statement of 
Managers language is included directing the agency to investigate this 
matter, take appropriate action, and report to the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Earlier this year, news accounts described incidents in meat 
slaughterhouses which were atrocious--atrocious--violations of the 
Humane Slaughter Act. As part of the $2.5 million amendment that I 
sponsored in this year's supplemental, an enhanced program of oversight 
within the agency has been initiated to ensure better enforcement of 
this act. Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that 
it had begun this new initiative--using both funds provided by the 
supplemental and other Departmental funds--and had placed additional 
FSIS personnel in field district offices to work closely with plant 
inspectors and veterinarians.
  These individuals, who will be officially known as ``Humane Handling 
Verification Experts and Liaisons''-- let me repeat, these individuals, 
who will be officially known as ``Humane Handling Verification Experts 
and Liaisons''--will work to tighten up enforcement and oversight of 
the Humane Slaughter Act.
  We are talking about animals. I am not one of those who claim that 
man is an animal. Man was created a little lower than the angels but 
above the beasts of the field. Read the Scriptures. Read Milton's 
``Paradise Lost.'' Yes, the animals serve us every day in ways that we 
do not tend to remember. They serve us. But for the animals, mankind 
would not exist upon the Earth, in all likelihood. Oh, you say, he 
might become a vegetarian, but what about the beasts of burden? The 
righteous man looks to the welfare of his beast. So, I intend to watch 
this initiative. You can bet on it. I intend to watch this initiative 
with keen interest and will look forward to making sure that resources 
are continually provided to make it an effective tool to stop inhumane 
treatment of animals.
  I guess my little dog Billy has had a great deal to do with my 
attitude toward animals. He has a little sister named Bonnie. Billy 
Byrd is 15 years old. But if there is a creature on this Earth that is 
absolutely and forever unfailingly loyal and dedicated to me--and there 
is--it is my little dog Billy, that Maltese terrier. He is an animal, 
but he feels pain. He must understand affection and love because he 
gives it to me and he gives it to Erma; and I give it and she gives it 
in return.
  Yes, never does he let me leave the door for work that he does not 
follow me to the last step. That is an animal. We are talking about 
animals that are slaughtered for the food that graces

[[Page 22666]]

the table of men and women and children around the world--animals that 
we should treat humanely.
  Mr. President, again I want to congratulate the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for a job 
well done. Well done, Senator Kohl. Well done, Senator Cochran. I also 
thank all members of the subcommittee for their contributions to this 
final product. I thank the members of the staff on both sides of the 
aisle, without whom, where would we find ourselves. I thank them. I 
support this conference report, and I hope that all Senators will do 
the same.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2330, the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
  The conference report provides $16.018 billion in discretionary 
budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $12.038 
billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into 
account, discretionary outlays for the report total $16.282 billion in 
2002. By comparison, the Senate-passed version of the bill provided 
$16.137 billion in discretionary budget authority, which would have 
resulted in $16.118 billion in total outlays. The conference report is 
at its revised Section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and 
outlays. The conferees have met their target without the use of any 
emergency designations.
  I commend Senators Kohl and Cochran for working together in a 
bipartisan manner with their House counterparts to complete in an 
expedited manner the conference to this very important piece of 
legislation, which provides funding for agriculture, conservation, 
rural development, and domestic food programs. I also commend Chairman 
Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as House Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Obey on the significant progress made by the two appropriations 
committees over the last couple of weeks in completing the 2002 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 2330, THE AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
 AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002,
                 SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:
  Budget Authority...............       16,018       43,112       59,130
  Outlays........................       16,282       33,847       50,129
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority...............       16,018       43,112       59,130
  Outlays........................       16,282       33,847       50,129
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............       15,399       43,112       58,511
  Outlays........................       15,789       33,847       49,636
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............       15,668       43,112       58,780
  Outlays........................       16,044       33,847       49,891
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority...............       16,137       43,112       59,249
  Outlays........................       16,118       33,847       49,965
 
  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority...............            0            0            0
  Outlays........................            0            0            0
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............          619            0          619
  Outlays........................          493            0          493
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............          350            0          350
  Outlays........................          238            0          238
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority...............         -119            0         -119
  Outlays........................          164            0          164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the
  conference report to the revised Senate 302(b) allocation.
 
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Who yields time to the 
Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. First, I 
congratulate him on his excellent remarks. All of us who have owned 
pets and have developed a friendship and affection for them can 
certainly identify with his kind words about his beloved Billy Byrd and 
Billy Byrd's sister Bonnie. I say to Senator Byrd, I was not aware your 
dog had a sister. I am glad that has been reported formally in the 
Congressional Record.
  I also congratulate Senator Kohl because he has worked hard on the 
Agriculture appropriations bill that is before us. I am happy to serve 
on the subcommittee. I know the hours that have been put in by the 
Senator and his staff.
  Let me highlight two aspects of this bill that we ought to keep in 
mind. It is known as the Agriculture appropriations bill, but it is so 
much more.
  As important as agriculture is to America, this bill contains as much 
money or more for nutrition and feeding as it does for agricultural 
programs.
  This morning a man by the name of Robert Forney came to my office. 
Bob is an old friend. He was head of the Chicago Stock Exchange. When 
he retired last year, Bob Forney became the CEO of a program known as 
Second Harvest. Second Harvest is the largest emergency food provider 
in America. They keep the canned goods and other items of food 
available for families who are struggling.
  Bob came to tell me this morning that the challenge facing food banks 
across America and feeding programs is growing geometrically; 415,000 
Americans lost their jobs last month. Many of them lost jobs that don't 
qualify for unemployment insurance, and they are struggling to feed 
their children.
  In this land of prosperity, children are going hungry and the numbers 
grow by the day. This bill, with its provision for WIC, for mothers, 
infants, and small children, as well as the provision for food stamps, 
addresses that. We ought to be mindful of the need to watch this 
closely. More money probably will be needed before the end of the next 
fiscal year.
  There is an important element in this bill about food safety. I 
salute Senator Byrd, who stood here yesterday and said: Let us put 
money into food security at a time when American families are worried 
about bioterrorism. We lost because colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle said this is not an emergency. We know better. America knows 
better.
  This bill, which funds the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to make certain that our food is safe, 
provides funds, but the bill offered by Senator Byrd would have given 
the additional resources needed for more inspectors, better inspection, 
better peace of mind for people all across America. That bill was 
defeated. I hope we have a chance to debate that again.
  What happened yesterday really turned this Chamber on its head. We 
are supposed to listen to the people we represent. We are supposed to 
speak for them and advocate for them. What Senator Byrd came forward 
with yesterday was spending so that we could produce vaccines to 
prepare America for a possible bioterrorist attack. Some have said: 
There the Democrats go again, spending money right and left on 
porkbarrel. Vaccines to immunize our children and families in case of a 
bioterrorist attack is not porkbarrel or wasteful. It is prudent and 
thoughtful. I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on that.
  Putting money into law enforcement: We tried yesterday so that across 
Illinois and West Virginia and Wisconsin and across the Nation, our 
first responders, whether police or firefighters, will have the 
resources to respond to an act of terrorism.
  Modernization for computers: The Senator from West Virginia may be 
stunned to learn, as I did recently, that a new FBI agent told me their 
computer system at the FBI does not have

[[Page 22667]]

e-mail, nor does it have access to the Internet. That is the computer 
system of the premier law enforcement agency in America.
  Senator Byrd put resources in that bill to modernize computers at the 
FBI and other important law enforcement agencies. The Republicans voted 
against it, saying it was not an emergency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield 30 seconds?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am always happy to yield to the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  I thank Senator Durbin, the very distinguished and able Senator from 
Illinois, for his kind remarks and for his references to the amendment 
of yesterday. We will be back.
  I again thank the distinguished Senator who yielded me the time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, the Agriculture appropriations bill is fundamental to 
the Nation's agricultural economy and supports foreign and domestic 
food programs. Unfortunately, porkbarrel interests also received 
remarkable support in this final conference report. While this final 
conference report includes less porkbarrel spending than the Senate 
bill passed just a couple weeks ago, it still includes $335 million in 
wasteful, unnecessary, and unreviewed spending which is $30 million 
more than the amount included in the final report passed last year.
  Every single appropriations bill we have passed so far has an 
increase in porkbarrel spending over last year. We are now up to $9.6 
billion of wasted, unnecessary programs.
  While the Senator from Wisconsin is on the floor, I saw one of the 
more egregious things happen the other night when there was a managers' 
package which had 35 provisions in it. When we were about to vote on 
it, I asked: Does anybody here know what is in this package? No one 
did.
  We found out what was in it. What was in it was a violation of a 
trade agreement we just concluded with Vietnam. We found 15 porkbarrel 
projects identified by State for members of the appropriations 
subcommittee. I tell the Senator from Wisconsin, I will not allow a 
vote again until the managers' package is examined. That was an 
egregious act that was done by the Senate. My constituents deserve a 
lot better than what happened the other night with a managers' package 
which was brought up late in the evening. No one had seen it. When we 
found out, it was certainly something that I never would have allowed 
to pass.
  When the Senate considered and passed the Agriculture spending bill a 
couple weeks ago, the typical porkbarrel trickery reached unprecedented 
levels. Midnight legislative riders were covertly slipped in unseen by 
a majority of the Senate. Erroneous earmarks for special interest 
projects were tacked on--again, unseen and circumventing the normal 
committee process--and funding priorities in stark discord with that of 
the administration.
  Many of my colleagues have spoken before the Senate about the 
economic struggle of America's farmers. Common sense would dictate that 
this bill be directed towards supporting those Federal programs that 
most benefit farmers in need. Instead, special interests reign and 
millions of taxpayers' dollars are diverted to funding research 
facilities, universities, and farming conglomerates.
  Even emergency dollars provided by Congress for farmers do not reach 
intended beneficiaries. This porkbarrel bonanza includes millions for 
projects that administrations have proposed for elimination year after 
year. Yet generous benefactors on the Appropriations Committee keep the 
spigot open and continue to drain dollars from hard-working taxpayers.
  This method of budget monopolization is ricocheting out of control. 
Let's take a look at the top 10 porkbarrel earmarks in this final 
Agriculture appropriations bill.
  No. 10, $2.2 million for the Center for Cool and Cold Water 
Aquaculture in Leetown, WV. I come from a pretty hot State. It is 
starting to cool off now. Maybe we could get some of that money out in 
Arizona for cool and cold water aquaculture rather than have it all be 
devoted to Leetown, WV.
  No. 9, $600,000 for a tristate joint peanut research project in 
Alabama. Naturally it is in Alabama, but it is tristate.
  No. 8, $600,000 for agricultural waste utilization in West Virginia. 
Nowhere else in America--$600,000 for agricultural waste utilization in 
West Virginia. I guess agricultural waste needs to be utilized more 
importantly in West Virginia than any other part of America.
  No. 7, Increase of $750,000 for the Wisconsin Livestock 
Identification Consortium. We now have a consortium in Wisconsin to 
identify livestock.
  No. 6, $2 million to pay for efficient irrigation in New Mexico and 
Texas--efficient irrigation in New Mexico and Texas.
  No. 5, $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois. Trees 
Forever. I have mentioned on the floor, I would like to see a cactus 
forever program. Perhaps the appropriators might devote that to my 
State of Arizona.
  No. 4, $200,000 for the Iowa Soybean Association. Last I checked, the 
Iowa Soybean Association was a private organization composed of 
individuals who decided to join in this association in support of 
soybeans. Now we are going to give them $200,000.
  No. 3, $4.5 million for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, 
SC.
  No. 2, $230,000 for animal waste management in Oklahoma.
  No. 1, $100,000 for the Weed It Now initiative in Massachusetts, New 
York, and Connecticut. Weed It Now. Mr. President, we need a Weed It 
Now program on these appropriations bills. We need to weed out this 
outrageous dispensation of American tax dollars.
  I want to speak briefly about one of the concealed provisions slipped 
into the managers' amendment just before the Senate passed this bill. 
This provision effectively bans all imports of Vietnamese catfish into 
the United States. The sly wording of this measure doesn't mention 
Vietnam at all. But it does patently violate our solemn trade agreement 
with Vietnam, before the Vietnamese National Assembly has even ratified 
that agreement. The ink isn't even dry yet, and we are violating that. 
Why? No doubt it was inserted on behalf of several large, wealthy U.S. 
agribusinesses that will handsomely profit by killing competition from 
Vietnamese catfish imports.
  Whether you are a free trader or an opponent of harmful special 
interest riders hidden in big spending bills, you can't help but find 
this sort of behavior to be a scandalous abrogation of our duty to the 
national interest. After preaching for years to the Vietnamese about 
the need to get government out of the business of micromanaging their 
economy, we have sadly implicated ourselves in the very sin our trade 
policy claims to reject. I will work with Senators Kerry, Phil Gramm, 
and others to see that this offensive trade barrier doesn't stand.
  We have a great responsibility to American citizens. I urge my 
colleagues to exercise greater prudence and principle in this 
responsibility.
  Mr. President, I have an article from the Wall Street Journal of 
yesterday, and I also have an article from the Washington Post of 
today. I ask unanimous consent that both of those articles be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 14, 2001]

    Add-On Spending Projects Are on Course To Exceed Those of Last 
                             Administration

                           (By David Rogers)

       Washington.--After tough talk last spring, the White House 
     appears to be retreating from its vow to stem the tide of 
     year-end spending projects added by Congress to annual 
     appropriations bills.
       Soon after taking office, the administration proposed to 
     write off billions of dollars in existing pork-barrel 
     projects as ``one-time'' expenditures. But as the legislative 
     session draws to a close just the opposite is

[[Page 22668]]

     the case, and the number of so-called spending earmarks by 
     lawmakers may actually be growing.
       Congress yesterday sent President Bush a $112.7 billion 
     appropriations bill estimated to have close to 1,400 earmarks 
     attached to science, veterans, housing and environmental 
     programs. The list of projects in a single account in the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development consumed 10 pages 
     of the Congressional Record, and space-science programs 
     increasingly have become a conduit for grants to home state 
     universities.
       The action came as House and Senate negotiators approved a 
     $75.9 billion agriculture budget adding scores of research 
     projects along with an amendment to help U.S. catfish growers 
     fight off imports from Vietnam. Hours later, still more 
     earmarks were approved as part of a final $39.3 billion 
     Commerce, Justice, and State Department budget that adds 
     money for maritime loan subsidies that the White House wants 
     to terminate.
       The administration has raised objections, but nothing like 
     this week's veto threat over how much Congress can spend in 
     response to the terrorist attacks. For example, in a recent 
     five-page letter to negotiators on the HUD and science bill, 
     the issue of earmarks was almost the last issue raised by 
     Budget Director Mitchell Daniels Jr. His Deputy, Sean 
     O'Keefe, insisted yesterday that progress is being made 
     incrementally, but on a bipartisan basis, House 
     Appropriations staff say the administration has been little 
     help in curbing the more earmark-prone Senate. ``We haven't 
     heard a peep,'' said James Dyer, chief clerk to the House 
     Appropriations panel.
       Last spring, the tone was very different, as the Office of 
     Management and Budget tallied up more than 6,000 earmarks 
     costing $15 billion in the last appropriations bills approved 
     by the departing Clinton administration. In trying to make 
     room for its own initiatives--including the president's tax 
     cut--OMB assumed cuts of $8 billion from such earmarks and 
     other ``one time'' expenditures. Failure to enforce this 
     budget discipline, now, could come back to haunt the 
     administration, which faces the prospect of rising costs 
     because of terrorist strikes and a troubled economy.
       The revised agriculture budget yesterday is a first sign of 
     these pressures. As unemployment has risen, so has the 
     projected caseload next year for federal nutrition programs, 
     and lawmakers had to add $211 million to Mr. Bush's request 
     to pay these bills.
       All of this comes at a time of increasingly bitter 
     relations between the Appropriations and OMB. Mr. Daniels is 
     blamed by lawmakers in both parties for precipitating the 
     veto clash this week with Mr. Bush. In a ``Dear Mitch'' 
     letter, House Appropriations Chairman Bill Young (R., Fla.) 
     and Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the ranking Democrat, asked 
     that OMB freeze all spending and transfers from an emergency 
     fund until there is more consultation with the panel.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2001]

                    In Congress, Pork Stays on Menu


        pet projects sometimes at odds with new spending demands

                   (By John Lancaster and Dan Morgan)

       Last month, lawmakers rejected a proposal to add $131 
     million to a program that helps Russia keep track of its 
     nuclear stockpile. It's not that they didn't like the idea: 
     After Sept. 11, almost everyone in Congress agrees on the 
     need to do more to stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear 
     bombs.
       But House and Senate negotiators meeting to decide the 
     final shape of a $24.6 billion spending bill covering the 
     nation's nuclear and water programs could not find room for 
     the increase.
       They had other priorities, including:
       A museum at the Atomic Testing History Institute in Las 
     Vegas ($1 million);
       Aquatic-weed removal in the Lavaca and Navidad rivers in 
     Texas ($350,000).
       A study of erosion on Waikiki Beach in Hawaii ($350,000).
       Targeting funds for specific projects at the request of 
     individual lawmakers is a time-honored ritual on Capital 
     Hill, and this year is no exception. But as Congress 
     completes work on 13 annual spending bills, its business-as-
     usual approach to managing the federal budget is colliding 
     with the new demands of fighting terrorism.
       The soaring costs of responding to the attacks--Congress 
     has already approved $40 billion for the purpose--have done 
     little so far to curb congressional appetites for 
     courthouses, highways, dams, parks and other purely parochial 
     items. According to congressional aides, the number of such 
     ``earmarks'' in this year's crop of spending bills is likely 
     to approach or even exceed last year's record number, which 
     was estimated by the White House budget office at 6,400 (a 
     threefold increase from 1995).
       Many of the earmarks, as in previous years, reflect 
     political clout more than national need. Money is flowing 
     disproportionately to the districts of appropriations 
     committee members and congressional leaders--including self-
     described fiscal conservatives such as Senate Minority Leader 
     Trent Lott, who secured millions for projects in his home 
     state of Mississippi.
       ``These legislative hijinks are bad enough in peacetime,'' 
     Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Senate last week, after 
     noting acidly that on Sept. 13, while the Pentagon and the 
     World Trade Center ``still smoldered,'' the Senate approved 
     $2 million for the Oregon Groundfish Outreach Program. 
     ``America is at war. . . . Congress should grow up and stop 
     treating the domestic budget as a political Toys R Us.''
       There is no shortage of examples: $510,000 for a chapel at 
     Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Base in Hawaii; $100,000 to study 
     the feasibility of converting a building in Martinsburg, W. 
     Va., to a museum for Army artifacts; $70,000 to refurbish a 
     bird observatory in Montgomery County, Pa.; $500,000 for the 
     Montana Sheep Institute.
       ``Pork thrives in good times and bad times,'' said Allen 
     Schick, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution. 
     He added, ``the problem is not the individual project, but 
     the cumulative effect. . . . When you add up the total, it 
     just blows your mind.''
       Earmarks do not automatically swell the federal budget, 
     because in some cases they merely direct government agencies 
     to spend money for specific purposes within the limits of 
     available funds. But many of this year's items were added on 
     top of President Bush's budget request, sometimes in House-
     Senate conferences where they received little scrutiny. 
     Successive administrations have insisted that such choices 
     are better left to federal agencies, complaining that 
     earmarks create upward pressure on the budget by crowding out 
     more important needs.
       Members of the appropriations committees--who note that the 
     Constitution grants Congress authority over spending--say 
     they can judge local needs better than federal bureaucrats 
     because they have their ears to the ground back home.
       Several congressional aides defended this year's earmarks, 
     observing that spending legislation was largely drafted--and 
     in some cases voted on by one or both chambers--before Sept. 
     11. They also noted that, whatever the particulars of 
     individual bills, spending is on track to stay within the 
     overall budget ceiling of $686 billion negotiated by the Bush 
     administration and congressional leaders last month.
       There is little question, however, that the fat surplus 
     projections of recent years, now fading into memory, have 
     eased pressure on Congress to show restraint. White House 
     budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. has all but abandoned 
     the quest he launched earlier this year to contain the 
     practice of earmarking. ``To be honest, the appropriators 
     weren't that receptive,'' an administration official said.
       Despite broad bipartisan agreement on the need to spend 
     more to fight terrorism--lawmakers have tried without success 
     to persuade the White House to lift the $40 billion ceiling 
     on emergency spending related to the Sept. 11 attacks--they 
     have been reluctant to do so at the expense of pet projects 
     back home.
       During a House-Senate conference on the energy and water 
     bill Oct. 26, for example, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) offered 
     an amendment that would have added $131 million to an Energy 
     Department program to help Russia safeguard its nuclear 
     materials. He was responding, in part, to a January warning 
     by a department task force--chaired by former Senate 
     Republican leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (Tenn.) and former 
     White House counsel Lloyd Cutler--that lax nuclear security 
     in Russia was ``the most urgent unmet national security 
     threat to the United States today.''
       But conferees rejected Edwards's proposal to shift the 
     money from a program to refurbish nuclear warheads in the 
     U.S. arsenal. Nor did they consider taking funds from 
     hundreds of local water projects or other earmarks, such as 
     the atomic history museum.
       ``That's a very fair question to ask,'' Edwards said when 
     queried about why he did not suggest the option.
       Edwards said that while he would have been open to an 
     across-the-board cut in water projects to fund the 
     nonproliferation program, ``it is politically very 
     difficult'' to eliminate individual earmarks--some of which, 
     he acknowledged, he sought on behalf of his own constituents.
       The $1 million earmark to pay for exhibits at the Atomic 
     Testing History Institute was added by Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-
     Nev.), the assistant majority leader, who chairs the energy 
     and water panel of the Appropriations Committee. Reid's hand 
     is evident throughout the final bill, which adds 50 Nevada-
     specific items worth $146 million to Bush's original budget 
     request.
       According to a spokesman, Reid strongly supports the Energy 
     Department's nonproliferation efforts but objects to shifting 
     funds for the purpose ``at the eleventh hour.'' The 
     spokesman, Nathan Naylor, said it was not surprising that a 
     bill to fund nuclear programs would steer a lot of money to 
     Nevada, given the state's central role in nuclear testing.
       Naylor said the atomic history museum would ``chronicle the 
     historic sacrifice that Nevada has made for the country 
     during the Cold War,'' when some of its residents were 
     poisoned by radiation from above-ground

[[Page 22669]]

     tests in the 1950s. ``This is part of our history, and if 
     this is what it costs to protect that legacy, so be it,'' he 
     said.
       Reid is hardly alone in using his leadership post to 
     channel federal resources to the folks back home.
       Lott, for example, has joined the Bush administration in 
     opposing additional spending for homeland defense, the 
     military and New York City in a pending supplemental 
     appropriations bill. ``He's concerned about spending just 
     spiraling completely out of control,'' Lott told reporters 
     last week. ``And I share that concern.''
       But even as Lott was making that comment, the Senate was 
     giving final approval to a spending bill that included $10 
     million for the Stennis Space Center in Bay St. Louis, Miss.; 
     $50,000 for a street extension that will ``link cultural and 
     entertainment districts'' in Jackson, Miss.; $500,000 for 
     Lott's alma mater, the University of Mississippi; and more 
     than $1 million for water systems in Jackson and Picayune, 
     Miss.
       In a similar vein, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif) used his 
     power as chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee 
     to steer a $10 million grant to the city of San Bernardino, 
     in his district, to clean up the underground water supply. 
     The bill would direct the Army to clean up radioactive waste 
     at a site in the district of Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the 
     ranking Democrat on the panel.
       Senate appropriators, meanwhile, used the $10.5 billion 
     military construction bill, signed by the president on Nov. 
     5, to speed up stalled environmental projects in their states 
     and districts. For example, the report attached to the 
     enacted bill gives the Pentagon 90 days to submit a master 
     plan for ``environmental remediation'' of Hunters Point Naval 
     Shipyard in San Francisco, home town of the chairman of the 
     military construction panel in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein 
     (D).
       According to a Senate study, the nine states that will 
     receive the most earmarked military construction money are 
     represented by senior members of the defense or military 
     construction panels, or the two armed services committees.
       To pay for earmarked projects while staying within a $10.5 
     billion ceiling established by the appropriations committees, 
     House and Senate conferees adopted a 1.127 percent across-
     the-board cut in regular military construction accounts.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am against what is going on here. In a 
time of war, some have called it ``war profiteering.'' I think it is 
wrong. We are abrogating our responsibilities to the American people. I 
also think it is time the administration step in and the President veto 
some of these bills with these outrageous spending projects in them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time run 
equally on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is running equally.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Arizona has said I can yield back his 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is yielded back.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2500

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the action on the Agriculture appropriations conference 
report, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2500, the Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriations bill, and that it be considered under the following 
limitations: 45 minutes for debate with time equally divided under and 
controlled as follows: 15 minutes each for Senator Hollings, Senator 
Gregg, and Senator McCain, or their designees; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, without further intervening action or debate, 
the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the order is that the vote 
begin at 11:30; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will begin when all time is yielded 
back.
  Mr. REID. How much time is outstanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are approximately 4 minutes on each 
side.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, upon the advice of the Republican staff, I 
yield back their time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     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
     Hutchison
     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 (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--7

     Bayh
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Kyl
     McCain
     Smith (NH)
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Torricelli
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________