[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27175-27201]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it is our intention to move next to the 
amendment of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka; and, after that, to 
the amendment of Senator Cantwell. However, Senator Specter from 
Pennsylvania has an amendment which he wishes to propose. The time will 
not be long and he has another time commitment. I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Specter be recognized before we proceed in the manner that 
I have outlined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Utah.


                           Amendment No. 2080

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2080, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2080.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To limit the use of funds to allocate the rate of price 
support between the purchase prices for nonfat dry milk and butter in a 
 manner that does not support the price of milk at the rate prescribed 
                                by law)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. LIMITATION ON ALLOCATION OF PURCHASE PRICES FOR 
                   BUTTER AND NONFAT DRY MILK.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     pay the salaries or expenses of employees of the Department 
     of Agriculture to allocate the rate of price support between 
     the purchase prices for nonfat dry milk and butter in a 
     manner does not support the price of milk in accordance with 
     section 1501(b) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7981(b)).

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which I am offering 
following a letter on July 8, 2003, to the Secretary of Agriculture, 
cosigned by some 20 Senators. This amendment provides that the 
Secretary must take immediate action concerning the Commodity Credit 
Corporation's purchase price for dairy products. The market price for 
individual products has fallen below the support levels, thus allowing 
the price of milk products to fall below the statutory level of $9.90 
per hundredweight.
  In the year 2000, 7 out of 12 months the price was below the $9.90 
set at $8.57. In 2002, 4 out of 12 months were below the support price, 
and currently, in 2003, 6 out of 12 months were below the support price 
set at $9.11.
  This amendment prohibits the expenditures in the Department of 
Agriculture unless they follow the clear-cut mandate of existing law, 
which is to have the prices set.
  I had understood a few moments ago that this was cleared on both 
sides, but it may be that there are some objections to be lodged. It is 
my hope that this can be worked out in the course of the afternoon.
  I thank my colleagues for yielding these few minutes. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2088

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
2673, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004, that will 
help protect the health of the American public. This amendment would 
prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from utilizing funds 
under this Act to approve downed animals for human consumption. I thank 
Senators Levin, Cantwell, and Lieberman for cosponsoring this 
amendment.
  Downed animals are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, 
horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk 
unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases 
and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease.
  I commend USDA and livestock organizations for their efforts to 
address the issue of downed animals. However, I am deeply concerned 
about diseases such as BSE, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, more 
commonly known as mad cow disease, that pose a serious risk to the 
United States cattle industry and human health. A food inspection study 
conducted in Germany in 2001 found that BSE is present in a higher 
percentage of downed livestock than in the general cattle population. 
USDA stated that downed animals are one of the most significant 
potential pathways that have not been addressed in previous efforts to 
reduce risks from BSE. Stronger legislation is needed to ensure that 
these animals do not enter our food chain. My amendment prevents downed 
animals from being approved for consumption at our dinner tables.
  On January 21st of this year, USDA's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) proposed rules in the Federal Register 
asking for comments on reducing the risks of BSE from downed and dead 
livestock. In the proposed rules, USDA acknowledges that downed animals 
serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. Currently, before 
slaughter, USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) diverts downer 
livestock that exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE or other 
types of diseases until further tests may be taken. However, this does 
not mean that downed livestock cannot be processed for human 
consumption. If downer cattle presented for slaughter pass both the 
pre- and post-inspection process, meat and meat by-products from such 
cattle can be used for human consumption. Routinely, BSE is not 
correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that 
show similar symptoms. This was demonstrated by the surveillance of a 
similar inspection process in Europe, showing that the process is 
inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, BSE-infected cattle can be 
approved for human and animal consumption.
  Although USDA increased the number of cattle tested for BSE from 
5,200 during the year 2001 to 19,990 in the year 2002, this still 
represents less than one percent of the industry that is tested. Of the 
5,200 cattle tested for BSE in fiscal year 2001, approximately 87 
percent of the animals targeted for testing were downed. Today, USDA 
has increased its efforts to test approximately 10 percent of downed 
cattle per year for BSE. It is interesting to note, however, that Japan 
currently tests each of its 1.3 million beef cattle slaughtered 
annually for BSE. While I am not asking the industry and Federal 
Government to test every slaughtered cow, I am asking the Federal 
Government to address and reduce the real risks associated with BSE and 
similar diseases in the U.S.
  Some individuals fear that my amendment would place an excessive

[[Page 27176]]

financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my 
colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE this 
year shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated 
that the Canadian beef industry lost over $1 billion as a result of the 
discovery of BSE and more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and 
beef. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its 
economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in 
preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain.
  We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases 
such as BSE. My amendment reduces the threat of passing diseases from 
downed livestock to our food supply. USDA only tests a small sample of 
downed animals for diseases. This is not enough. My amendment ensures 
downed animals will not be used for human consumption. It also requires 
higher standards for food safety and protects human health from 
diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it would be my intention on this side to 
accept this amendment.
  Mr. AKAKA. I ask my amendment be set aside momentarily and we return 
to it at a future time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has not formally sent up the 
amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. I assumed we would go to the amendment from the Senator 
from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii has not sent his 
amendment to the desk.
  Without objection, the pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself, and Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Lieberman, and Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2088.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To restrict funding for the approval for human consumption of 
                   meat produced from downed animals)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. PROTECTION OF DOWNED ANIMALS.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act to pay the salaries or expenses of employees or 
     agents of the Department of Agriculture may be used to 
     approve for human consumption under the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) any cattle, sheep, 
     swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are unable 
     to stand or walk unassisted at an establishment subject to 
     inspection at the point of examination and inspection, as 
     required by section 3(a) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 603(a)).

  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2087

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and I send it to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2087.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To prohibit energy market manipulation)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. PROHIBITION OF ENERGY MARKET MANIPULATION.

       (a) Prohibition.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 215. PROHIBITION OF MARKET MANIPULATION.

       ``It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or 
     indirectly, to use or employ, in connection with the purchase 
     or sale of electric energy or the purchase or sale of 
     transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission, any manipulative or deceptive device or 
     contrivance in contravention of such regulations as the 
     Commission may promulgate as appropriate in the public 
     interest or for the protection of electric ratepayers.''.
       (b) Rates Resulting From Market Manipulation.--Section 
     205(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824d(a)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``not just and reasonable'' the 
     following: ``or that result from a manipulative or deceptive 
     device or contrivance''.

  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman, 
Hollings, Jeffords, Dorgan, and Feingold be added as cosponsors to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the time to discuss this 
issue.
  Some colleagues may wonder why we are talking about energy 
legislation and market manipulation on the Agriculture appropriations 
bill. As my colleague from California pointed out in the previous 
amendment on derivatives legislation and market manipulation 
prevention, this was part of an agreement that the Western Senators 
worked out when we were discussing the Energy bill prior to our August 
recess. The fact that we were willing to move off that debate on a 
variety of amendments was because we had a commitment for a chance to 
have further discussion on important issues that impacted the economies 
of Western States.
  That was the agreement made at that time, and today is the moment in 
which Senator Feinstein and I both have our opportunities to discuss 
what we consider very important legislation and to get the Congress on 
the record and make sure the Senate takes a stand against market 
manipulation.
  Many Members know a lot has happened since the time of discussion of 
these issues about the energy crisis and what we should do. But we 
should be clear about the sequencing of things that the United States 
now knows and understands. The Senate knows and understands that Enron 
has admitted market manipulation. They have executives who have said, 
yes, these contracts were manipulated and prices were faulty.
  We have a report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so thick 
it is hard for me to hold in one hand that goes through a variety of 
issues in relation to market manipulation in which FERC found there was 
not only manipulation, but a demonstration for the need of explicit 
prohibitions on this kind of harmful and fraudulent market behavior.
  That is exactly what this amendment tries to address. The amendment I 
have offered, and Senator Bingaman and others have offered, says 
something very basic and simple that probably many Americans, and I 
guarantee many Washingtonians, assumed would already be in a Federal 
statute such as the Federal Power Act. The amendment simply says that 
manipulation or manipulated contracts under the Federal Power Act 
cannot be just and reasonable.
  Some of my colleagues may have remembered an earlier amendment where 
we prescribed some solutions. This amendment has been compromised and 
offers no specific remedies to the legislation but is specific in 
saying that market manipulation, in fact, is not something that can be 
just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act and it is not the kind 
of activity that the Commission should consider as lawful activity.
  Most of my colleagues would say that manipulation and fraud surely 
has no place in the Federal Power Act; sanctioning those activities is 
somehow legal. But the absence of that prohibition in the Federal Power 
Act is leaving some doubt in people's minds that, in fact, manipulation 
is unlawful.
  I bring that up because Washingtonians--as Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, 
California, Utah--have been suffering from high energy costs related to 
these manipulations of Enron contracts. Not only will they be stuck 
with paying those Enron contracts over a long period of time, but my 
State, the State of Washington, had utilities as much as a 50-percent 
rate increase because of Enron's contracts, and we will be stuck with 
those contracts over 5 years.
  While Ken Lay remains uncharged, or at least not paying any dues for 
the crime he perpetrated, and he keeps the

[[Page 27177]]

millions of dollars of money that he has gotten from Enron, my 
ratepayers in Washington State for the next 5 years will end up paying 
the high prices of those manipulated contracts. Not only will we end up 
paying the high prices of those manipulated contracts, but the 
utilities in my State and other States--Nevada, California, Oregon, 
some of the other Midwest States I mentioned--have tried to basically 
deal with Enron. They have been basically sued by the company. So not 
only is my ratepayer stuck with paying those high utility bills, they 
are actually trying to fight the legal battle against Enron, which is 
turning around and suing them.
  My amendment does something very simple today. It basically says in 
the Federal Power Act that for the prospective issue of making sure it 
is clear to people throughout the country that the Senate does not 
tolerate market manipulation.
  I have to say we have done great work on this issue as it relates to 
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and as it relates to making 
sure that accounting practices have been changed. But nowhere have we 
been specific in saying that market manipulation is an unlawful 
practice and cannot be just and reasonable under the Power Act. That is 
simply what we are trying to say today.
  Why is that needed? I have a letter I circulated to my colleagues 
from one of the newest nominees to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, a Republican nominee who spent many hours in the 
legislative branch working under Energy Secretary Abraham and spent 
time in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to whom I posed this 
question as a nominee before FERC because I wanted to understand where 
FERC nominees were going in the future.
  Mr. Kelliher responded exactly where I think the input needs to be to 
the Senate. He said:

       I agree with much of what you have said. I agree that the 
     markets subject to manipulation cannot operate properly and 
     there is an urgent need to proscribe manipulation of 
     electricity markets.

  He further states:

       You have correctly noted that there is no express 
     prohibition of market manipulation in the Federal Power Act 
     and have proposed legislation to establish that prohibition. 
     This is a critical point. The Federal Regulatory Commission 
     only has the tools Congress chooses to give it, and Congress 
     has never given the Commission express authority to prohibit 
     market manipulation. I believe the time has come for Congress 
     to take that step.

  That is an exact quote from a letter by the FERC nominee Joseph 
Kelliher from the administration saying, ``You want me to be a FERC 
commissioner? I am telling you exactly what I think about the FERC 
rules. And I am telling you we need the language that is in this 
amendment.''
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 November 5, 2003.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: I am writing at your request to 
     explain at greater length my views on legislation to prohibit 
     manipulation of electricity markets.
       I have followed your comments on market manipulation with 
     great interest during the two years since my nomination was 
     announced. I agree with much of what you have said. I agree 
     that markets subject to manipulation cannot operate properly 
     and there is an urgent need to proscribe manipulation of 
     electricity markets. You have correctly noted there is no 
     express prohibition of market manipulation in the Federal 
     Power Act and have proposed legislation to establish an 
     express prohibition. This is a critical point. The Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission only has the tools that Congress 
     chooses to give it, and Congress has never given the 
     Commission express authority to prohibit market manipulation. 
     I believe the time has come for Congress to take that step.
       Market manipulation is a relatively recent development in 
     electricity markets, but it is not a new problem. 
     Manipulation has occurred in other markets, and Congress has 
     enacted laws to proscribe manipulation in these markets. 
     These laws can serve as models for legislation to prohibit 
     manipulation of electricity markets.
       Securities and commodities law establish an express 
     prohibition of market manipulation and authorize a regulatory 
     agency to prohibit specific manipulative practices by 
     rulemaking. That approach allows an agency to act quickly 
     once manipulative practices are identified. These models have 
     worked well over time and could serve as the basis for 
     legislation to prohibit manipulation of electricity markets.
       The penalties authorized by congress in the Federal Power 
     Act are unlikely to discourage criminal behavior. For that 
     reason, tougher penalties--both higher monetary penalties and 
     longer prison terms--are needed. Legislation is necessary to 
     accomplish this. I should note that I advocated tougher 
     penalties well before the Western electricity crisis and 
     subsequent release of the Enron marketing memoranda. In 
     addition to higher monetary penalties and longer prison 
     terms, I recommend Congress grant the Commission authority to 
     impose a lifetime ban on individuals found guilty of criminal 
     violations of market manipulation laws. That authority exists 
     at the regulatory agencies that oversee securities and 
     commodities markets, and I see no reason why market 
     manipulation in electricity markets should be subject to 
     lesser sanction.
       This is not to say that the Commission cannot take steps to 
     prevent market manipulation under its existing legal 
     authority. For example, the Commission can revoke the 
     authorization of a public utility to sell electricity at 
     market-based rates if it determines the public utility 
     engaged in market manipulation. Further, I believe the 
     Commission could prohibit manipulative practices under 
     section 206 of the Federal Power Act if it determined that 
     such practices were inherently unjust, unreasonable, unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential. Since there would likely be 
     legal challenges to any such effort to proscribe manipulative 
     practices, it would be helpful for Congress to give the 
     Commission clear authority to prohibit market manipulation.
       At you request, I have reviewed your marked manipulation 
     amendment. I support the goals of your amendment and believe 
     it would go far towards effectively prohibiting manipulation 
     of electricity markets.
       I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on this 
     subject with you.
           Sincerely,
                                               Joseph T. Kelliher.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think the Kelliher letter and the 
report we have seen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on 
price manipulation in western markets is the evidence we need. We have 
all admitted this manipulation has taken place. What is not clear to 
the American public is if we plan to do anything about it or if we plan 
to prohibit it in the future.
  I think we need to be clear. The language I have offered in this 
amendment, as I said, is very simple and straightforward. It is that 
way because we want to make sure the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission does not misinterpret the intent of Congress, that Congress 
needs to say manipulating prices cannot be just and reasonable or in 
the public interest, and their job is to basically protect electric 
ratepayers from these kinds of manipulation.
  I am not going to continue to take up the time of my colleagues who 
have heard about this amendment and have had an opportunity to review 
it. I urge them, as part of our further understanding of where the 
Energy bill is, that it is being set aside. This is the opportunity 
before us to make sure we take a stand against market manipulation and 
we need to make it clear to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
which seems to be unclear about what authority they currently have, and 
to make it explicit that market manipulation cannot be tolerated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, quick housekeeping.


                           Amendment No. 2088

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go back to the Akaka 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I call for a vote on the Akaka amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2088.
  The amendment (No. 2088) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2087

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move that we go back to the Cantwell 
amendment.

[[Page 27178]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am not familiar with this issue, but I 
have asked members of the Energy Committee about it, and they have 
indicated opposition to the Cantwell amendment. There are some members 
of that committee who are on their way here. In the meantime, I will 
share with my colleagues the contents of a memorandum with respect to 
the Cantwell amendment that has been provided to Senator Domenici.
  In this memorandum, the following objections are raised.
  First:

       FERC has and is using its authority to stop fraud and 
     manipulation. . . .
       FERC has demonstrated that it will use the full extent of 
     its authority to assure honest, fair wholesale electricity 
     markets.

  FERC has taken a number of initiatives which are listed in the memo 
and which I will share with Members if the appropriate members of the 
Energy Committee do not arrive.
  The second objection to the Cantwell amendment is that it is too 
vague. It is suggested that:

       It is written in such general terms that it will lead to 
     greater uncertainty. A general ban on manipulation will not 
     help companies determine what conduct amounts to manipulation 
     and what conduct is appropriate behavior in a competitive 
     market. . . . [A] blanket prohibition on ``manipulation,'' 
     without defining the elements of what constitutes 
     manipulation . . . could have a chilling effect on the market 
     without meaningfully adding to the protections already 
     available to electricity customers under existing law.

  The third objection is that:

       The Cantwell Amendment could lead to duplication and 
     confusion among the agencies.
       The enabling statutes of the Commodity and Futures Trading 
     Commission (CFTC) and the Securities Exchange Commission 
     (SEC) already contain broad prohibitions against conduct that 
     is intended to manipulate markets. Adding such another broad 
     general prohibition to the Federal Power Act would only lead 
     to unnecessary duplication and potential conflict between 
     various enforcement agencies.
       In addition, the Federal Power Act already prohibits 
     wholesale electricity prices that are not ``just and 
     reasonable.'' Therefore, FERC has the authority to 
     investigate electricity prices and to require refunds if 
     prices are not ``just or reasonable'' or modify contracts if 
     it is in the public interest to do so.
       The House and Senate Energy bills both would enhance FERC's 
     existing refund authority and increase civil and criminal 
     penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act.

  The memo makes the point that this issue has been addressed in the 
Energy bill, and that is the place for it to be done.
  The next objection raised is:

       The number of Federal investigations and prosecutions by a 
     broad array of agencies demonstrates there is no need for the 
     Cantwell Amendment.
       Federal agencies have been and continue to be active in 
     investigating criminal offenses in the energy industry.

  These agencies as listed in the memorandum include the President's 
Corporate Fraud Task Force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the United States 
Postal Service, and numerous U.S. Attorney's offices across the 
country.

       Through ``cooperative enforcement,'' these agencies have 
     focused on investigations of possible round trip trading, 
     false reporting and fraud and manipulation by energy 
     companies and their affiliates, employees and agents. There 
     have been a number of arrests, settlements and continued 
     investigations and prosecutions reported based on these 
     agencies' efforts.

  And the argument is made that:

       The Cantwell Amendment will not improve or change these 
     actions.

  Then reference is made to:

       The Domenici Electricity Amendment effectively deals with 
     market manipulation.

  This is the amendment that is part of the Energy bill that is now in 
conference. The memo outlines all the reasons why that particular 
amendment is sufficient.
  As I say, I am waiting for a member of the Energy Committee to come 
make these arguments with perhaps a little more background than I have. 
I would like to move to a vote on this amendment, so I ask, before I 
would suggest the absence of a quorum, if the Senator from Washington 
would agree to a vote, let us say, at 4:20. Would that be a sufficient 
period of time for the Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have not taken up a significant amount 
of time because I think Members have been educated on this issue, so I 
would suggest we just go ahead and vote on the issue and move ahead.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is suggesting we vote right now? I am 
willing. I am anxious to move as much time as possible. If the Senator 
is ready, if there is no one else who wants to speak on this issue----
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am sure there are Members who, if they 
had the time, would come and speak, but I think to make this process 
move as smoothly as possible, I see no need to continue to wait for 
Members of the Energy Committee to show up. If Members are here who 
want to speak on behalf of the amendment, one way or another----
  Mr. BENNETT. I see the Senator from Nevada is on the floor, and he 
may wish to speak.
  I would ask, then, following the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, 
if no other Senator has come wishing to speak, we proceed directly to 
the vote.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have always been a great admirer of the 
Senator from the State of Washington. She always steps forward with 
amendments that are extremely important.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would propound a unanimous consent request that the 
vote occur at 4:30.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not think there is going to be a vote 
very soon on this matter. I think it is going to be quite a long time 
before we vote. We have a lot of things we need to talk about.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reid are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe maybe we need a vote.
  So when would my friend from Utah like to vote?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would be happy to vote on the Cantwell 
amendment immediately and then go on to other business connected to the 
bill.
  Mr. REID. I think the Senator should move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the Cantwell amendment No. 
2087. 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 North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 439 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer

[[Page 27179]]


     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 2087) was agreed to.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand there are several Senators 
who have amendments they would like to offer. Senator Dayton has one. 
Senator Bingaman has one. We have not yet had an opportunity to go 
through the Bingaman amendment which came to us relatively recently. So 
I would prefer to go to Senator Dayton to give us a little more time to 
examine the Bingaman amendment, but that could be the decision of the 
minority. I prefer to go to Senator Dayton's amendment next if that is 
agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I defer to the manager of the bill. If 
he would like time to review the amendment that I have given him, I 
have no problem with that course of action.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask Senator Dayton if he would give us 
some indication of how long he thinks he will take on his amendment and 
see if we cannot enter into a time agreement so that we can know when 
we might be able to vote.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, responding to the distinguished manager of 
the bill, I myself will take less than 10 minutes. It is my 
understanding there may be one or two other Senators who wish to speak 
on this matter. I do not have their requests before me.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then that we vote 
on the Dayton amendment at 5:15.
  Mr. REID. I object. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. It is my understanding then that I have the floor to 
proceed but there is no further agreement thereafter; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no agreement.


                           Amendment No. 2089

  (Purpose: To provide emergency disaster assistance to Agricultural 
                               producers)

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2089.

  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this summer farmers in my State of 
Minnesota suffered one of the worst droughts in the State's history. 
Throughout the critical months of July and August, Minnesota received 
no rain whatsoever. Those cloudless blue skies with lots of warm 
sunshine which are considered good summer weather become deadly when it 
becomes relentless. Ninety-five percent of Minnesota's crop acres 
suffered some loss as a result, and 62 of our 87 counties were declared 
by the Secretary of Agriculture to be disaster area counties. Yields, 
moisture content, and overall quality of crops were all adversely 
affected by this drought.
  To add misery to injury, insect infestation attacked thousands of 
soybean acres in southern Minnesota, further destroying plants, 
lowering yields, and forcing already hard-pressed growers to spend 
$10,000, $20,000, or even more to spray their fields in order to fight 
off total devastation.
  In total, Minnesota farmers lost more than $1.1 billion in expected 
crop revenues. That is over 30 percent of our State's total crop 
revenue.
  Yet, tragically, another disaster afflicts those unfortunate farmers 
and thousands of other farmers who suffered similar losses in other 
States this year. That disaster is that there is no disaster aid 
funding in the current farm law which was enacted last year. The Senate 
bill that we passed here provided disaster aid. The House bill did not. 
The conference report, regrettably, took the House and the 
administration's position, with the result that if you are hurt by low 
prices, you are helped under the current law, but if you are 
devastated, you are on your own and receive no assistance whatsoever.
  My amendment provides assistance when disaster does strike. It does 
so by starting with the formula that was used in last year's disaster 
aid bill; from losses exceeding 35 percent of total value, farmers 
received disaster aid payments equal to 65 percent of the losses above 
the 35 percent threshold. It is a survival payment. It is not a break-
even and certainly not a profit payment.
  My amendment also adds a lower reimbursement for losses between 25 
percent and 35 percent of value. Formerly, those losses would have 
received no assistance whatsoever. This formula pays 40 percent of 
those losses between 20 percent and 35 percent of total value.
  The amendment also covers unreimbursed losses during the 2001 and 
2002 seasons. As my colleagues will recall, farmers who suffered 
disasters in both of those years were allowed to receive payments from 
losses in only one of them. In other words, disaster aid is Sophie's 
choice. This amendment would compensate those farmers for their losses 
in the second year.
  My amendment as written covered program crop losses and specialty 
crop losses throughout the country. However, I have also added, at the 
request of other Members, losses suffered during the year, which means 
the amendment now covers losses of shrimp in Louisiana, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, and 
other losses which occurred in the States of Michigan, Florida, and 
California, as well as other national specialty crops.
  The total cost of my amendment, as estimated by the Congressional 
Budget Office, is approximately $6.3 billion. Because it is, in my 
view, an emergency expenditure, I do not believe it requires, under the 
Budget Act, an offset, and I am not providing one.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the chairman if this is an appropriate time for me 
to make a 10- or 15-minute statement relative to an amendment which you 
have accepted on the FDA and dietary supplements.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask the Senator if he would withhold for just a 
moment. We are trying to pull a few things together. But I am more than 
happy to

[[Page 27180]]

have the time appropriately spent other than in a quorum call.
  If the Senator will withhold for just a few moments, I will be in a 
position to respond.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair and 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee is 
anxious to come over to develop the issue of the budget point of order 
for emergency designation with respect to the amendment offered by 
Senator Dayton. As he has indicated, it is $6.3 billion, and there is 
no offset in the bill. Our bill is $1 billion below last year's fiscal 
year 302(b) allocation, and therefore this is obviously a very 
significant number.
  Until the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, has an opportunity to be here to review this matter with us, 
I would be willing to allow the Senator from New Mexico to begin the 
description of his amendment because I understand he would like to get 
that done. He has a timeframe tonight. And we could view the 
possibility of voting on both amendments at some point when the debate 
on both amendments has subsided rather than keeping the time tied up in 
a quorum call.
  With recognition of the pressures the Senator from New Mexico is 
under, I would like to perhaps move ahead on both of those amendments 
on a double track situation.
  Mr. REID. I object. If there is going to be a request to set aside 
the Dayton amendment, I object.
  Mr. BENNETT. All right. There is objection. Therefore, I do not 
pursue that. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois this might be a 
good time to hear from him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair of the committee and the ranking 
member, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, for agreeing to an amendment which 
will be offered here in a moment as part of a managers' amendment, to 
my understanding. This is an amendment with which I tried to construct 
a deal, facing what I consider to be an extremely serious situation.
  We now have a body of law in America relative to products which are 
sold for human consumption, and there are different laws and standards 
for different products. The ordinary American walking into a pharmacy 
or drugstore or health food store or nutrition store may not know that, 
depending on which product you take off the shelf, there is a different 
standard of care, a different legal requirement.
  I would like to spend a moment to discuss the differences.
  If you were to go into your local pharmacy and have a prescription 
filled--which many of us have--this is what you know. This prescription 
drug has been tested for three things before it was sold to you. First, 
that it is safe, that you can consume it without injuring yourself; 
second, that it is efficacious, meaning it will do what it is supposed 
to do; and, third, it has been packaged and manufactured in a fashion 
so when they say it is 200 milligrams, it is in fact 200 milligrams. 
You know that. The Food and Drug Administration has required clinical 
tests to make sure it is safe--efficacious--and packaged in a fashion 
as it is represented. With that assurance, your doctor prescribes it 
and you take the medicine.
  Now you walk down from the pharmacy counter in the drugstore and you 
decide to pick up some cough syrup such as this. You have bought this 
cough syrup. The question is: What standard of care, what body of law 
governed the manufacture of this over-the-counter drug, in this case, 
Robitussin DM, which was previously a prescription drug. It went 
through the same test for safety and efficacy to determine whether or 
not it met those tests and could be sold. Then it reached a point where 
a medical decision was made that you no longer needed a prescription 
and the component parts of this drug meet the same test of safety and 
efficacy and it is packaged in such a fashion that you know what you 
are buying.
  I might also add for both the prescription drug and the over-the-
counter drugs, which I have just described, if something happens--if 
you take this prescription, for example, and have a bad health result 
or this over-the-counter drug with a bad health report and you report 
it to the company or to your doctor, it is expected and required that 
adverse event, as it is known, will be reported to the Food and Drug 
Administration. They keep track of those. If they find out what they 
thought was a safe drug turns out to have a bad reaction, they will 
pull it from the market. The same is true with an over-the-counter 
drug. You know the standard of care for both prescription drugs and 
over-the-counter drugs.
  We have other things which you will find in that same drugstore. One 
of them would be ordinary vitamin pills, the kind I took this morning. 
What are the standards for these vitamins--vitamin C or ordinary 
multivitamins? Unfortunately, the standards are much different. In this 
case, they are basically being manufactured and sold without the same 
clinical tests. No one has tested them for safety, for efficacy. 
Frankly, the standards for many are questionable as to even how they 
are packaged and sold to the public. But the belief is most of these 
naturally occurring minerals and vitamins and this type of supplement 
are generally good for your health. Those who believe in them take them 
for a variety of conditions. It is believed they cause no great harm; 
in fact, that they may have real health benefits.
  We passed a law about 9 years ago which established a standard for 
something we call dietary supplements which are also for sale in the 
same drugstore with prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and 
vitamins. These dietary supplements might be one such as this, natural 
herbal formula to promote energy and diet. What kind of standard of 
testing went into this product? The answer is none. There was no 
testing in advance required by law that what is included in this bottle 
is safe for human consumption or in fact even helps you when it comes 
to your energy or diet, and few, if any, standards about whether or not 
when they say this is 200 grams of one thing or another, in fact, are 
included. When you buy a dietary supplement, frankly, there are no 
standards of testing and care before the product is put on the shelf 
for the consumers.
  I tell you this by way of background because that is why this 
amendment is important. When we passed the Dietary Supplement Health 
Education Act, we said we were dealing with natural supplements like 
vitamin C and garlic, multivitamins and the like. What has happened 
over the past 8 or 9 years is we have gone way beyond the basic 
vitamins. We now find a witches brew of a variety of different dietary 
supplements way beyond vitamins and minerals that are being sold under 
the same law with no testing standards, with no establishment of their 
safety or efficacy, no standards as to how they are packaged, and no 
requirement that they report adverse events to the FDA. As you walk 
into the drugstore and fill your prescription and walk past the 
counters, the American consumer has no idea that at end of the counter, 
the standard of protection and care changes depending on what you are 
buying.
  That is why I am offering an amendment to this bill which earmarks 
$250,000 for the Food and Drug Administration to examine one particular 
compound being sold in dietary supplements. The compound is ephedrine. 
Ephedrine is a naturally occurring chemical that one finds similar to 
the synthetic chemical ephedra. Ephedrine is very closely monitored by 
FDA in both prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs. But when it 
is sold in these types of dietary supplements, it isn't tested for 
safety, it isn't tested for efficacy, and it isn't tested in terms of 
how much is included in the bottle,

[[Page 27181]]

and certainly no requirement for adverse events to be reported to the 
FDA.
  Sadly, this product I have in my hand, known as Yellow Jackets, is 
sold as an extreme energizer, an herbal dietary supplement containing 
ephedrine. The reason I have kept this bottle is because 30 miles from 
my hometown in Springfield, IL, just last year a young man who was a 
high school senior and a football player in preparation for a football 
game decided he needed a shot of energy, a boost of strength to go out 
and play for his team. He went into a local gas station and bought 
these Yellow Jacket energizers and washed them down with Mountain Dew, 
which is heavy in caffeine, had a heart attack, and died. Ephedra 
products, as a consequence, have been under suspicion for a long time.
  The sad reality is the United States is almost last in the world when 
it comes to dealing with ephedra products. You may not know it, but 
almost 2 years ago Canada banned ephedra products for sale in their 
country. They said it is too dangerous. Over a year ago, the American 
Medical Association said to the Food and Drug Administration, take 
these ephedra products off the shelf; they are dangerous. After 30 
service men and women had serious adverse health effects, we have 
removed all ephedra products from military commissaries across the 
United States. The National Football League, the NCAA, the National 
Basketball Association, and major league baseball have banned the use 
of these products. You can't use them if you want to compete in Olympic 
competition. Yet kids in junior high and high school can walk into a 
gas station and still buy this in most States, with the exception of 
Illinois, and I believe New York and California have joined suit in 
banning ephedra products.
  Over a year ago, I wrote to Secretary Tommy Thompson of Health and 
Human Services and said you have to do something. If Canada believes 
they are dangerous, if we think they are dangerous for service men and 
women, if the American Medical Association says they are dangerous, and 
if major sports have banned them, why in the world do we allow them to 
be sold in America?
  What happened in the meantime is the Government did absolutely 
nothing--issued a press release and did nothing to take these products 
off the shelf.
  What happened was a lot of the victims and their families went into 
courtrooms. A lot of people are critical of people filing lawsuits. 
This is a clear example where that was the only place to turn to 
protect innocent families and victims across America. Because of the 
class action lawsuits that were filed, we have now determined there 
were over 16,500 adverse events reports related to ephedra products 
that had been accumulated by all the companies that were selling them. 
Now they had to turn them over and disclose them.
  Within those 16,500 adverse events there were events including 
seizures, strokes, and 155 deaths. I think, frankly, we all know what 
is at stake here. We realize major drugstores see liability if they 
continue to sell products like these Yellow Jackets and they will take 
them off the shelf. Walgreen's, CVS, Eckerd, Rite Aid, and Wal-Mart, 
representing 17,300 stores nationwide, have pulled these ephedra-
containing dietary supplements from shelves. GNC, the largest specialty 
retailer of nutritional supplements in the country, with 5,300 stores 
nationwide, stopped selling ephedra products in June.
  One of the largest sellers of ephedra products, Metabolite--I am sure 
you have heard that name--sold ephedra compounds and was sued right and 
left because of these compounds. They said at one point they didn't 
have any adverse event reports. After they were pressed in a lawsuit 
they turned over thousands of examples of people who had bad health 
events because they took Metabolite's ephedra products.
  Metabalife is now advertising what they are selling is ``Ephedra 
free.'' Despite all this having taken place, our Government has done 
nothing, absolutely nothing. I have written over and over again to 
Secretary Thompson. I have met with Dr. McClellan, the doctor in charge 
of the Food and Drug Administration, and asked: When are you going to 
start protecting Americans? We have a clinical trial in America today. 
We are selling Ephedra to innocent people and seeing if they have a 
seizure or heart attack.
  Secretary Thompson, in April, said he was concerned about Ephedra and 
had taken more and stronger actions to address public health issues 
raised by Ephedra alkaloid than in the previous decade.
  That was his letter to me in April. Since Secretary Thompson wrote 
that letter to me, another 38 reports of death related to Ephedra have 
been accumulated, bringing the total to 155.
  A representative of the FDA spoke in front of the Senate Commerce 
Committee last week and said the Agency is in the process of analyzing 
30,000 comments they have received in response to the reopening of the 
1997 proposed rule on Ephedra and they are reviewing scientific 
evidence. Of course, delay means death, delay means injury, and delay 
is evidence that the Food and Drug Administration is not meeting its 
obligation under the law to protect American families from dangerous 
products.
  We had a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee before Senator 
McCain last week. A case was made very clearly that it is time to 
change the law. But first, get Ephedra off the shelves. That is why I 
introduced this amendment, put $250,000 in the FDA, earmarked to deal 
with Ephedra, to get an answer, get a conclusion and get it off the 
shelf as quickly as possible.
  When that is done, we will have made progress. But we need to do 
more. The makers of dietary supplements such as this one must be 
required by law to report to the Food and Drug Administration if people 
are dying from their products. That is not too much to ask in this 
society. Those who say that, because I am going after a deadly product 
like yellow jackets, that my real war is against vitamin C just do not 
understand the reality. The reality is vitamin C can help. Vitamin C is 
not going to kill you.
  This product killed a 16-year-old high school football player in 
Lincoln, IL. It has been attributed to the death of a Major League 
baseball player of the Baltimore Orioles.
  I asked the committee to earmark this money. I am glad the chairman 
has accepted. I hope that finally this will push Health and Human 
Services into doing the right thing and banning this dangerous 
substance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, thank you very much for this 
opportunity to speak on an issue important not only to my State but 
also to other States in my country as it continues to plague 
agricultural producers all over the United States. I thank Senator 
Dayton, my colleague from Minnesota, for offering this amendment and 
for his continuing good work on this important issue.
  Last year at this time this Chamber had a prolonged debate on whether 
to provide much needed emergency drought assistance to those hurt by 
continuing record drought. Some argued that there should be no 
assistance; others argued that, unlike with every other national 
disaster, assistance for drought victims should be funded through 
offsets. Some even argued we could always come back to take care of 
these victims at a later date.
  Still some argued that a drought is no less devastating than a 
hurricane or flood for those who are affected and it should be treated 
as we would treat other natural disasters, by providing full 
assistance, treat it as an emergency, which, in fact, it is.
  It took a while to get any help to our agricultural producers. 
Despite the plague of bankruptcies and the anticipated loss of 
thousands of family farms across the country, we could not get drought 
assistance passed until last spring, nearly 2 years after the worst of 
the drought had begun. That assistance came at a cost.
  It covered less than half of the damage the USDA estimated had been

[[Page 27182]]

caused by the drought, and it was paid for out of elements of the new 
farm bill, robbing Paul to pay Paul. To survive, our farmers would have 
to sacrifice their future for their present.
  Despite all that, despite waiting months for Congress to act, despite 
getting what assistance was offered at the expense of the farm bill, 
even now, more than 7 months after the passage of that inadequate bill, 
many of those hurt are just beginning to receive emergency payments. 
Some have received nothing while the least fortunate went bankrupt 
during the wait.
  The drought package passed last spring offered a little over $3 
billion for drought losses, half the estimated $6 billion in actual 
damages. By October 1, $1.85 billion had been distributed, just over a 
quarter of actual damages through 2002. Nebraska, which alone had $1.2 
billion in damages, has received only $138 million in crop disaster 
payments, barely 10 cents on the $1 of what it lost. As of September 
15, the sugar beet program had not even been implemented, leaving those 
producers with nothing.
  Still, the drought continues. That is why I am here today. And still, 
because that drought continues, our farmers and ranchers need help.
  I am here today to remind those who settle for less that we still 
need to do more. This map reflects the current drought impact in the 
United States. The red and brown areas are those areas that have been 
labeled as a drought area by the U.S. Drought Monitor at the University 
of Nebraska. The red areas within the regions have been declared as 
drought areas by the State or Federal Government. The brown areas have 
not been declared. As I said, they are considered to be declared 
drought areas by the U.S. Drought Monitor. The green areas are 
recovering from drought but could be impacted by recurring or lingering 
conditions. The yellow areas are under drought watch.
  This map is for the time period of September 5 through October 2 of 
this year, less than 60 days ago. We can see this drought continues.
  As is clear from this map, 16 States have seen at least half of their 
counties declared drought disasters and another 5 have some declared 
drought area and 2 additional States are considered drought States by 
the U.S. Drought Monitor but not all declared drought regions. All 
told, 23 States at the present time have at least some drought regions 
as labeled by the U.S. Drought Monitor. Another six States have some 
areas under drought watch.
  This map makes it very clear, and it should be clear for everyone to 
see, the drought has not ended. It remains a national problem and has 
taken another planting season, another growing season, and another 
harvest. We need to provide more assistance for our farmers and our 
ranchers. We need to do more to mitigate the effects of this drought.
  Finally, we need to take seriously the fact that a drought is no less 
devastating to those afflicted than of any other natural disaster.
  The unfortunate thing on a comparison basis, some natural disasters 
are immediate or nearly immediate. This natural disaster takes time to 
develop. In this case, it is continuing.
  If some believe this drought is not as damaging as other natural 
disasters, I invite them to visit Nebraska and the other States, visit 
farmers and ranchers who are selling their lands, selling their herds 
or those who have already sold their land and herds. I invite them to 
tour our rural communities to see how damaging this drought has been to 
small businesses, Main Street America, small communities that comprise 
those Main Streets that are connected to the land and the economic 
activity that it produces. I invite them to talk to the Governor of 
Nebraska who a few days ago asked the Department of Agriculture to 
declare our entire State a disaster area because of drought damages.
  I tried a number of measures to focus some attention on the plight of 
our agricultural producers. I even tried to name the drought, Drought 
David, thinking that would give it some sort of focus, just as we name 
hurricanes. I even brought drought ribbons that some of my colleagues 
were good enough to wear a year ago because they understood the 
national impact of this drought as well as the impact on their 
particular States. I worked with leaders in this area such as Senators 
Daschle, Harkin, Baucus, Dayton, and Johnson, who also pushed for 
comprehensive drought assistance. But still it has not been enough. We 
need to do more. With economic conditions being what they are, we 
cannot risk losing more family farms, we cannot risk losing rural 
businesses, and we cannot risk agricultural bankruptcies and 
foreclosures.
  This issue has not been resolved--not through the rains these 
counties and States need, and not through the paltry assistance 
provided by the Federal Government. We need to do more.
  So today I rise in support of Senator Dayton's amendment to provide 
more support for our family farmers. In fact, I considered offering an 
amendment myself on this very issue. And that, again, shows the breadth 
of the disaster. Such States as Nebraska and Minnesota, and everything 
in between, and all around, are still in dire trouble. Our Nation is at 
economic risk.
  If we dislike importing 50 to 60 percent of our oil for our energy 
needs, let me assure you, we will hate importing our food if it ever 
gets to the point that we lose agriculture as we have it today.
  So we must act. We must act now or it will be too late for tens of 
thousands of more family farms and the rural way of life.
  I thank you, Madam President. I thank the chairman, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Dayton for 
offering this amendment to secure emergency agricultural disaster 
assistance for our drought stricken agricultural producers.
  I worked the past 2 years to pass meaningful disaster assistance. For 
2 years, I worked to attach a disaster assistance package onto every 
piece of legislation I could. It passed twice in the Senate--once with 
70 votes. Unfortunately, the House and the administration failed to see 
the necessity of disaster assistance for our Nation's agricultural 
producers.
  A disaster package was eventually signed into law, but this package 
was a mere ghost of the original disaster package and did little to 
help those who were hurt the most by drought. Producers in my State of 
Montana experienced devastating drought in 2001 and 2002, but the 
package that was signed into law only provided relief for one of those 
years. I don't know many businessmen who would stay in business after 2 
years of more than 35 percent losses.
  Our Nation's agricultural producers are still hurting. I can count on 
one hand how many days it has rained in Billings, MT since June. The 
lack of moisture in my State combined with consecutive days of 100-plus 
temperatures during the summer exasperated the multiyear drought 
conditions.
  The effects of the drought have gone beyond our farmers and ranchers. 
Businesses are closing their doors, employees are being laid off, and 
main streets are literally drying up.
  When drought hits, it affects everyone in the area. In Geraldine, MT, 
which is located in Choteau County--right in the heart of the drought--
students who qualify for free and reduced meals increased from 47 
percent to 64 percent over the past year. This signals a dramatic fall 
in income for this area. Farmers who grow food for a living are asking 
for help to feed their families.
  As a Nation, we provide emergency assistance when a hurricane smashes 
into the East Coast, when a tornado rips through the Midwest, or when a 
flood destroys southern communities. We step in and help our neighbors 
who are in need and offsets are not required. There is no reason that a 
double standard should apply to drought.
  The agricultural producers in Montana hung on to strings of hope last 
year as we were fighting for disaster assistance for drought. After 
witnessing the atrocity of a package that passed, many of them were 
forced to sell their farms, their livelihood, their

[[Page 27183]]

way of life. It was heartbreaking. Many people are still hanging on by 
their fingertips though and that is why I support this amendment. We 
need to save these producers--the people who wake up at the crack of 
dawn every day to ensure that our Nation has a safe, abundant, and 
inexpensive food supply.
  This is about providing relief for the small businessmen and women 
who raise our food and experienced a natural disaster.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right and what is fair and to vote 
for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I see no other Senators wishing to 
speak on this matter. The chairman of the Budget Committee has not 
presented himself. But speaking on his behalf, I will raise a budget 
point of order about the emergency designation.
  Utah is at the bull's eye of the drought. We have more drought 
problems in Utah perhaps than any other State, and it is with some 
reluctance that I raise this point of order. But this is $6.3 billion, 
and there is no offset for it.
  I think if it is of value, it is of sufficient value that it is 
worthwhile to have a supermajority to support going $6.3 billion into 
an emergency. I think an emergency designation for this much money is 
something for which this procedure is designed.
  Therefore, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation 
contained in the pending amendment, that it violates section 502 of the 
concurrent budget resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, and 
therefore is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, with due respect to the Senator from 
Utah, it seems to me that if we are going to measure whether something 
is an emergency by the extent of the emergency, we are misperceiving 
those situations.
  I regret that the cost of this measure is estimated to be $6.3 
billion, but that is a function of the extent of the disaster which has 
occurred nationwide. If disaster aid is not itself considered to be an 
emergency, frankly, I don't know what possibly could be under the 
Budget Act.
  So, Madam President, I move to waive the budget point of order and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 40, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 440 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Biden
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 
55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The emergency designation is stricken.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, the amendment is still pending. It is 
now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset. Therefore, I believe we 
should vote the amendment down. We have already said this was the last 
vote today, but if the Senator wants a vote, I suppose there could be 
one. This is now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset with the 
emergency designation stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I will agree to a voice vote if the 
Senator from Utah concurs.
  Mr. BENNETT. Under those circumstances, Madam President, I raise the 
point of order that this is in violation of the Budget Act since there 
is no emergency designation and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken, and it is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, we now have a group of amendments which 
have been offered by a number of Senators and examined by a number of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle, all of which have been agreed to 
and cleared. I would like to send them to the desk, asking for a voice 
vote on each one. In every case, the amendment is in behalf of myself 
and Senator Kohl--I apologize, Madam President, there are other 
Senators involved. It is just the first amendment that is in behalf of 
myself and Senator Kohl.


                           Amendment No. 2091

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself and Mr. 
     Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 2091.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 50, line 14, strike ``$27,745,981,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$29,945,981,000''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, due to increased projections of 
unemployment which result in higher participation and food inflation, 
it is necessary that we increase the Food Stamp Program by $2.2 
billion, and this amendment will enable all qualified applicants to 
participate in this mandatory program. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2091) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2092

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Durbin and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2092.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 27184]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.  . Hereafter, no funds provided in this or any other 
     Act shall be available to the Secretary of Agriculture acting 
     through the Foreign Agricultural Service to promote the sale 
     or export of tobacco or tobacco products.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this amendment will ensure that USDA 
funding is not used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
products. This provision was inadvertently left out of the subcommittee 
bill. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2092) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2093

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself and Mr. 
     Kohl, proposes amendment numbered 2093.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 51, lines 14 through 17, strike ``special'' and all 
     that follows through ``1985,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``special assistance (in a form determined by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture) for the nuclear affected islands, as 
     authorized by section 103(h)(2) of the Compact of Free 
     Association Act of 1985 (48 U.S.C. 1903(h)(2)) (or a 
     successor law),''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this technical amendment clarifies the 
statutory authority for special assistance to the nuclear affected 
islands. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2093) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2094

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senators Murkowski, Stevens, Inouye, and Akaka, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Ms. Murkowski for 
     herself and Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Akaka, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2094.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 33, line 9, strike ``$769,479,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``767,479,000'' and on page 37, line 2, strike 
     $25,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$23,000,000''.
       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.  . (a) In General.--Section 3(o)(4) of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 2012(o)(4)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and except that on October 1, 2003 in the case 
     of households residing in Alaska and Hawaii the Secretary may 
     not reduce the cost of such diet in effect on September 30, 
     2002.''
       ``(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective beginning on September 30, 2003.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this amendment will prohibit the food 
stamp benefit for participants in Alaska and Hawaii from decreasing in 
the fiscal year 2004. The amendment has been cleared by the Agriculture 
Committee, and I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2094) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2095

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senators Snowe and Dorgan and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Ms. Snowe, for 
     herself and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2095.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. _. MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARIES OF AROOSTOOK COUNTY AND 
                   GRIGGS-STEELE EMPOWERMENT ZONES.

       ``(a) Aroostook County Empowerment Zone.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Aroostook County empowerment 
     zone shall include for the period such empowerment zone 
     remains designated, in addition to the area designated as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the remaining area of 
     the county not included in such designation.
       ``(b) Griggs-Steele Empowerment Zone.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Griggs-Steele empowerment zone 
     shall include for the period such empowerment zone remains 
     designated, in addition to the area designated as of the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the remaining area of Griggs 
     County not included in such designation.''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Olympia Snowe, in offering an amendment that will expand the 
borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire 
county, so that the benefits of empowerment zone designation can be 
fully realized throughout the northernmost county in Maine.
  The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a 
comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have 
traditionally received little Federal assistance, reflecting the fact 
that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary 
widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone Program 
represents a long-term partnership between the Federal Government and 
rural communities--10 years in most cases--so that communities have 
enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain 
their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment 
Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to millions 
of dollars in Federal grants for social services and community 
redevelopment as well as tax and regulatory relief over a ten-year 
period.
  Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. 
Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, 
the County has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15 
percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was 
closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people 
and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on 
Loring for their customer base.
  Unfair trade practices have also struck a blow to the County's 
economy. Aroostook shares more border miles with Canada than most 
northern states. It is bordered for approximately 280 miles to the 
west, north and east by Canada. Canadian farmers and businesses have 
been extremely competitive in Aroostook's traditional business markets; 
as a result, Aroostook's farmers have experienced a loss in sales which 
has caused additional job loss, and still more people migrating from 
Aroostook County. Aroostook's economic situation has been further 
worsened by the strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the 
U.S. dollar and the restrictive personal exemption duty limits that 
Canada imposes on its citizens when they make shopping trips to U.S. 
businesses on the border.
  In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development 
Commission and other economic development organizations, the private 
business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook County have joined 
forces to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. The 
designation of Aroostook as an Empowerment Zone has been a vital 
element of this ongoing effort to enhance both the present and the 
future economic prosperity of the county.
  There is, however, a restriction in the law governing empowerment 
zones that prevents this tremendous program from benefitting all of the 
small rural communities in Aroostook. Currently, the law limits the 
Aroostook empowerment zone to 1,000 square miles, despite

[[Page 27185]]

the fact that Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles and only has a 
population of approximately 72,000 people. Including all of the county 
in the empowerment zone will guarantee that parts of the county will 
not be left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does 
little good to have a company move from one community to another within 
the County simply to take advantage of empowerment zone benefits.
  America's greatest success can only be achieved when everyone has the 
opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a strong economy. It is only fair 
that all of Aroostook County's population be given the opportunity to 
fully benefit from the Empowerment Zone Program.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this amendment would expand the 
boundaries of the Arrostook Empowerment Zone in the State of Maine and 
the Griggs-Steele Empowerment Zone in the State of North Dakota to 
encompass the remaining area of the respective counties not currently 
included in the empowerment zone designation. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2095) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2096

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Levin and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Levin and Ms. 
     Stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 2096.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to issue to implement the 
  proposed rule on cost-sharing for animal and plant health emergency 
                               programs)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. COST-SHARING FOR ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH EMERGENCY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     issue a final rule in furtherance of, or otherwise implement, 
     the proposed rule on cost-sharing for animal and plant health 
     emergency programs of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service published on July 8, 2003 (Docket No. 02-062-1; 68 
     Fed. Reg. 40541).

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this amendment prohibits APHIS from 
requiring affected States to match emergency funding provided by the 
Federal Government. Many States are currently experiencing their own 
fiscal problems and may not have sufficient funds to provide a match. 
If a State is unable to provide matching funds, Federal funds would not 
be released to address the emergency situation under this proposed 
rule. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2096) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2097

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Inhofe and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2097.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 77, line 18, strike the comma and insert ``; the 
     City of Guymon, Oklahoma; the City of Shawnee, Oklahoma; and 
     the City of Altus, Oklahoma,''.

  Mr. BENNETT. This amendment would allow three communities in the 
State of Oklahoma to be eligible for the Rural Community Advancement 
Program. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2097) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2098

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself, and Mr. 
     Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 2098.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.  . Section 601(b)(2) of the rural Electrification 
     Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb(b)(2) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       `(2) Eligible rural community.--The term `eligible rural 
     community' means any area of the United States that is not 
     contained in an incorporated city or town with a population 
     in excess of 20,000 inhabitants.'.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, the amendment would allow rural 
communities with a population of less than 20,000 people to be eligible 
for broadband grants and loans. This amendment has been cleared by the 
Senate Agriculture Committee. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2098) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2099

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Inouye and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2099.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     all activities under programs of the Rural Development 
     Mission Area within the County of Honolulu, Hawaii, the 
     Secretary may designate any portion of the county as a rural 
     area or eligible rural community that the Secretary 
     determines is not urban in character.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. The amendment allows the Secretary of Agriculture to 
designate any portion of Honolulu County as a rural area for purposes 
of programs under the rural development mission area. I ask for a voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2099) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2100

  Mr. BENNETT. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and 
Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself, and Mr. 
     Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 2100.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.  . The first sentence of section 306(g)(1) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended--
       ``(1) by striking `or title V of the Housing Act of 1949'; 
     and
       ``(2) by inserting after `1944' the following: `, title V 
     of the Housing Act of 1949,'.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. The amendment would allow the Government National 
Mortgage Association, Ginnie Mae, to join other financial institutions 
in participating in the Multifamily Housing Guarantee Program. I ask 
for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2100) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2101

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Kohl, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2101.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.  . Notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (including the 
     associated regulations) governing the Community Facilities

[[Page 27186]]

     Program, the Secretary shall allow all Community Facility 
     Program facility borrowers and grantees to enter into 
     contracts with not-for-profit third parties for services 
     consistent with the requirements of the Program, grant, and/
     or loan: Provided, That the contracts protect the interests 
     of the Government regarding cost, liability, maintenance, and 
     administrative fees.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. This amendment would allow a small town which does not 
have sufficient internal resources to utilize an outside not-for-profit 
party to perform the service for which the grant was made. For 
instance, if a community received a grant for a childcare facility, the 
community could contract with a third party to provide the childcare.
  I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2101) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2102

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Brownback and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Brownback, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2102.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 72, line 20, after the word ``Utah'' insert the 
     following: ``, and four flood control structures in Marmaton, 
     Kansas''.

  Mr. BENNETT. This amendment adds four flood control structures in 
Kansas to the list of projects which may receive financial and 
technical assistance through the Watershed and Flood Prevention 
Operations Program. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2102) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2103

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2103.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 42, line 1, insert ``Utah,'' after 
     ``Mississippi,''.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. This amendment adds the State of Utah to the list of 
States in which a processing worker demonstration pilot project is to 
be initiated. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2103) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2104

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself, and Mr. 
     Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 2104.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 74, line 7, insert ``(a)'' before the word 
     ``Notwithstanding'' and on line 15 insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) The Secretary shall publish a proposed rule to carry 
     out Section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 
     within 60 days of enactment of this Act.''.

  Mr. BENNETT. This amendment directs the Secretary to move forward 
with the implementation of the Rural Economic Development Loan and 
Grant Program authorized in the 2002 farm bill. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2104) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2105

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senators Grassley and Dorgan and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Grassley, and 
     Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2105.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To limit payments under the environmental quality incentives 
                                program)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. EQIP PAYMENT LIMIT.

       None of the funds made available under this Act or any 
     other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel to carry out chapter 4 of subtitle D of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) to make 
     payments to an individual, entity, or agricultural operation, 
     directly or indirectly, in excess of an aggregate of $300,000 
     for all contracts entered into by the individual, entity, or 
     agricultural operation during the period of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2007.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, in recognition that this is the last 
one of this stack, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2105) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Utah will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am not certain exactly what the status of the bill is. 
I know we have been working on it all day. My understanding is that we 
have had the last vote of the day so that may suggest that other 
amendments will not be offered, or certainly not voted on. I did want 
to inquire of the Senator from Utah about his plans for this bill.
  I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that deals with the 
importation of live cattle from Canada. As my colleagues know, last 
week the Secretary of Agriculture took some action to put Canada on a 
minimum risk category. This is a country within the last 6 or 8 months 
that has had one case of mad cow disease. I am very concerned about 
that, and I want to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment dealing with 
the importation of live cattle from Canada and my concerns about that.
  I would certainly be available to do that in the morning or at a time 
appropriate. I wanted to inquire what the Senator anticipates may 
happen on this legislation this evening.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I say to the Senator and to all Senators 
that I was prepared to go on further tonight but I have been informed 
that no amendments will be offered tonight. Therefore, no more debate 
and certainly no more votes. I would be happy to welcome the amendment 
from the Senator when he is prepared to offer it. It is certainly my 
intention to go forward tomorrow. I hope the decision not to offer any 
amendments tonight will be lifted by tomorrow and that we will have 
amendments before us and therefore items to debate and vote on.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further for an 
inquiry.
  I have worked with the Senator from Utah as a ranking member when he 
chaired the subcommittee. He is easy to work with and I know we will be 
able to work with the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Wisconsin 
on this issue.
  Especially in the last week or so, I have been immensely concerned 
about this issue of the importation of live cattle from Canada, only 
because the circumstances of live cattle coming across borders from a 
country in which there has been a case of mad cow disease is a very 
difficult situation. We want to be very careful about our country's 
beef herd and the potential devastation to that herd were we to have an 
outbreak or a case of mad cow disease.
  We belong to an organization called the Office of International Des 
Epizooties, which establishes the guidelines that our country and 
others follow with respect to animal health. I want to talk about that 
at some length and then offer the sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
because I think all of us

[[Page 27187]]

ought to be very concerned about when and how we decide to take action 
with respect to the import of live cattle from Canada.
  Finally, I might say I regret Canada has suffered this problem. It is 
a devastating problem for them to have had a mad cow case, but we ought 
to be very concerned and very careful about our beef herd in this 
country, and my amendment will address that subject.
  I thank the Senator from Utah for his courtesy.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, if he wanted to 
offer that amendment tonight and debate it tonight, certainly that 
would be very much in order. It has been made very clear there will be 
no further votes tonight.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a 
period not exceeding 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the introduction of S.J. 
Res. 23 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')


                           Amendment No. 2106

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Craig, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2106.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To facilitate cooperative agreements for wildlife services 
   programs of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the 
                       Department of Agriculture)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture may use appropriations available to the 
     Secretary for activities authorized under 7 U.S.C. 426-426c, 
     under this or any other Act, to enter into cooperative 
     agreements, with a State, political subdivision, or agency 
     thereof, a public or private agency, organization, or any 
     other person, to lease aircraft if the Secretary determines 
     that the objectives of the agreement will: (1) serve a mutual 
     interest of the parties to the agreement in carrying out the 
     programs administered by the Animal Plant Health Inspection 
     Service, Wildlife Service; and (2) all parties will 
     contribute resources to the accomplishment of these 
     objectives; award of a cooperative agreement authorized by 
     the Secretary may be made for an initial term not to exceed 5 
     years.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2106) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2107

  Mr. BENNETT. 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 Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Graham of 
     Florida, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2107.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make a technical amendment to ensure that assistance is 
     provided for tree replacement for losses due to citrus canker)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. CITRUS CANKER ASSISTANCE.

       Section 211 of the Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 (117 
     Stat. 545) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``TREE REPLACEMENT 
     AND'' after ``FOR''; and
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``tree replacement 
     and'' after ``Florida for''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2107) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2108

  Mr. BENNETT. 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 Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Burns, and 
     Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 2108.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To permit the use of certain unoblogated carryover funds to 
                 carry out the 911 access loan program)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION.

       For fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Agriculture may use 
     any unobligated carryover funds made available for any 
     program administered by the Rural Utilities Service (not 
     including funds made available under the heading ``Rural 
     Community Advancement Program'' in any Act of appropriation) 
     to carry out section 315 of the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936 (7 U.S.C. 940e).

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2108) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2109

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the 
desk on behalf of Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2109.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To insert a provision relating to funding the processing of 
  comments in response to a Federal Register item concerning ephedra)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . The Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
     Administration shall provide no less than $250,000, from 
     within funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
     Act for the Food and Drug Administration, to process comments 
     submitted in response to Docket No. 95N-0304 published in the 
     Federal Register on March 5, 2003 (68 FR 10417). Provided 
     further, the Commission should expedite and complete review 
     of available scientific evidence of ephedra's pharmacology 
     and mechanism of action.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2109) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2110

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Schumer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2110.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To ensure that amounts are made available for the generic 
                             drugs program)

       On page 57, line 4, insert ``and of which no less than 
     $52,845,000 shall be available for the generic drugs 
     program'' before the semicolon.


[[Page 27188]]

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2110) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2111

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Miller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Miller, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2111.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To restrict the expenditure of funds for the salary of the 
      Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. WORKLOAD ANALYSIS OF FARM SERVICE AGENCY.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     pay more than \1/2\ of the salary of the Under Secretary for 
     Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services after January 31, 
     2004, unless and until the Secretary of Agriculture provides 
     to the Committee on Agriculture of House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a workload analysis of employees of the Farm 
     Service Agency for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 
     (including an analysis of the number of workload items and 
     required man-years, by State).

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2111) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2112

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Frist and Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Frist and Mr. 
     Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 2112.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 
   university-based research, extension, and educational programs to 
    implement biobased energy technologies, products, and economic 
          diversification in rural areas of the United States)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. SUN GRANT RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Sun 
     Grant Research Initiative Act of 2003''.
       (b) Research, Extension, and Educational Programs on 
     Biobased Energy Technologies and Products.--Title IX of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 9011. RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ON 
                   BIOBASED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of the programs established 
     under this section are--
       ``(1) to enhance national energy security through the 
     development, distribution, and implementation of biobased 
     energy technologies;
       ``(2) to promote diversification in, and the environmental 
     sustainability of, agricultural production in the United 
     States through biobased energy and product technologies;
       ``(3) to promote economic diversification in rural areas of 
     the United States through biobased energy and product 
     technologies; and
       ``(4) to enhance the efficiency of bioenergy and biomass 
     research and development programs through improved 
     coordination and collaboration between the Department of 
     Agriculture, the Department of Energy, and the land-grant 
     colleges and universities.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Land-grant colleges and universities.--The term 
     `land-grant colleges and universities' means--
       ``(A) 1862 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of the 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
     1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601));
       ``(B) 1890 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of that 
     Act) and West Virginia State College; and
       ``(C) 1994 Institutions (as defined in section 2 of that 
     Act).
       ``(2) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       ``(c) Establishment.--To carry out the purposes described 
     in subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish programs 
     under which--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall provide grants to sun grant 
     centers specified in subsection (d); and
       ``(2) the sun grant centers shall use the grants in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(d) Grants to Centers.--The Secretary shall use amounts 
     made available for a fiscal year under subsection (j) to 
     provide a grants in equal amounts to each of the following 
     sun grant centers:
       ``(1) North-central center.--A north-central sun grant 
     center at South Dakota State University for the region 
     composed of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, 
     Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and 
     Wyoming.
       ``(2) Southeastern center.--A southeastern sun grant center 
     at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville for the region 
     composed of--
       ``(A) the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 
     Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 
     Virginia;
       ``(B) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
       ``(C) the United States Virgin Islands.
       ``(3) South-central center.--A south-central sun grant 
     center at Oklahoma State University for the region composed 
     of the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, 
     Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
       ``(4) Western center.--A western sun grant center at Oregon 
     State University for the region composed of--
       ``(A) the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, 
     Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington; and
       ``(B) territories and possessions of the United States 
     (other than the territories referred to in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C) of paragraph (2)).
       ``(5) Northeastern center.--A northeastern sun grant center 
     at Cornell University for the region composed of the States 
     of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, 
     Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 
     Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Centers of excellence.--Of the amount of funds that 
     are made available for a fiscal year to a sun grant center 
     under subsection (d), the center shall use not more than 25 
     percent of the amount for administration to support 
     excellence in science, engineering, and economics at the 
     center to promote the purposes described in subsection (a) 
     through the State agricultural experiment station, 
     cooperative extension services, and relevant educational 
     programs of the university.
       ``(2) Grants to land-grant colleges and universities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The sun grant center established for a 
     region shall use the funds that remain available for a fiscal 
     year after expenditures made under paragraph (1) to provide 
     competitive grants to land-grant colleges and universities in 
     the region of the sun grant center to conduct, consistent 
     with the purposes described in subsection (a), 
     multiinstitutional and multistate--
       ``(i) research, extension, and educational programs on 
     technology development; and
       ``(ii) integrated research, extension, and educational 
     programs on technology implementation.
       ``(B) Programs.--Of the amount of funds that are used to 
     provide grants for a fiscal year under subparagraph (A), the 
     center shall use--
       ``(i) not less than 30 percent of the funds to carry out 
     programs described in subparagraph (A)(i); and
       ``(ii) not less than 30 percent of the funds to carry out 
     programs described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(3) Indirect costs.--A sun grant center may not recover 
     the indirect costs of making grants under paragraph (2) to 
     other land-grant colleges and universities.
       ``(f) Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of funds 
     under subsection (j), in cooperation with other land-grant 
     colleges and universities and private industry in accordance 
     with paragraph (2), the sun grant centers shall jointly 
     develop and submit to the Secretary, for approval, a plan for 
     addressing at the State and regional levels the bioenergy, 
     biomass, and gasification research priorities of the 
     Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy for 
     the making of grants under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (e).
       ``(2) Gasification coordination.--
       ``(A) In general.--In developing the plan under paragraph 
     (1) with respect to gasification research, the sun grant 
     centers identified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (d) shall coordinate with land grant colleges and 
     universities in their respective regions that have ongoing 
     research activities with respect to the research.
       ``(B) Funding.--Funds made available under subsection (d) 
     to the sun grant center

[[Page 27189]]

     identified in subsection (e)(2) shall be available to carry 
     out planning coordination under paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection.
       ``(g) Grants to Other Land-Grant Colleges and 
     Universities.--
       ``(1) Priority for grants.--In making grants under 
     subsection (e)(2), a sun grant center shall give a higher 
     priority to programs that are consistent with the plan 
     approved by the Secretary under subsection (f).
       ``(2) Term of grants.--The term of a grant provided by a 
     sun grant center under subsection (e)(2) shall not exceed 5 
     years.
       ``(h) Grant Information Analysis Center.--The sun grant 
     centers shall maintain a Sun Grant Information Analysis 
     Center at the sun grant center specified in subsection (d)(1) 
     to provide sun grant centers analysis and data management 
     support.
       ``(i) Annual Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the end 
     of a year for which a sun grant center receives a grant under 
     subsection (d), the sun grant center shall submit to the 
     Secretary a report that describes the policies, priorities, 
     and operations of the program carried out by the center 
     during the year, including a description of progress made in 
     facilitating the priorities described in subsection (f).
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section--
       ``(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       ``(C) $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2010.
       ``(2) Grant inforamtion analysis center.--Of amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1), not more than $4,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year shall be made available to carry out 
     subsection (h).''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Frist and I are offering an 
amendment to authorize a new program that we call the Sun Grant 
Initiative. The Sun Grant Initiative--or SGI--is an effort to provide 
an innovative approach to creating new biobased products and markets 
for farmers, thereby enhancing the environment and developing new 
industries in our Nation's rural communities.
  The SGI would establish five Sun Grant Centers across the Nation to 
stimulate needed research and development projects, while providing 
leadership and coordination for a regional competitive grant program 
that will address national research issues and educational needs at the 
regional and local levels. This new program will provide a much-needed 
bridge between our Government's current national research efforts and 
the State-based research education networks of the Land-Grant 
universities. The SGI will forge a new partnership between the national 
leadership and energy expertise of the Federal Government and the 
agricultural and rural community development expertise of the 
Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Cooperative Extension System.
  The United States has steadily increased its reliance on imported 
oil. Alternative sources of energy and industrial chemicals must be 
developed as soon as possible. The Sun Grant Initiative will stimulate 
the production of bioenergy resources to complement and augment 
petroleum energy resources, while helping to reduce our dependence on 
imported oil and constrain energy costs for American industries and 
consumers.
  Additionally, American farmers need new products and viable market 
alternatives. Sun Grant research, development and education programs 
will stimulate the development bioenergy and bioproducts on American 
farms, creating an opportunity for an additional, significant source of 
income to farmers. The SGI will encourage new biobased industries and 
new capital investments, stimulating the economies of these rural 
communities.
  I want to thank Senator Frist, Chairman Bennett, and Senators Kohl, 
Cochran, Harkin and Smith for their support of this innovative and 
exciting effort to build a biobased economy that can assist our Nation 
in so many ways.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2112) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2090

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2090.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] for Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
     Harkin, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2090.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To specify a minimum level of funding for regulation of 
                          dietary supplements)

       On page 79, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS.

       The Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall provide not less 
     than $11,400,000 from within funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act for regulation by the Food and 
     Drug Administration of dietary supplements.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the managers, Chairman Bennett and 
Senator Kohl, for agreeing to the amendment that Senators Harkin, 
Durbin and I offer today.
  The purpose of our amendment is simple. The Food and Drug 
Administration has advised us that, in fiscal year 2004, it will spend 
$10.4 million to regulate dietary supplements. The Hatch-Harkin-Durbin 
amendment would increase those activities by 10 percent, or $1 million.
  Let me explain why this amendment is necessary. First, I will explain 
the pertinent law that the FDA administers.
  There is no question that tens of millions of Americans rely daily on 
safe dietary supplements to maintain and improve their healthy 
lifestyles. The popularity of these products and the concern over their 
regulation are what led to enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health 
and Education Act, DSHEA, in 1994, a bill that Senator Harkin and I 
were proud to author with now-Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson. 
DSHEA is a strong law that properly implemented will protect the 
interests of consumers. But, as with any law, it has to be implemented 
for it to work.
  Enactment of DSHEA followed literally decades of Food and Drug 
Administration animosity toward dietary supplement products. This 
animosity and the lack of a clear regulatory structure for supplements 
were clearly demonstrated prior to passage of DSHEA. That is why two-
thirds of the Senate cosponsored our bill. That is why a majority of 
the House cosponsored the bill. And that is why it passed so 
overwhelmingly.
  The basic structure of DSHEA allowed all products marketed as dietary 
supplements when the bill was enacted to stay on the market unless the 
FDA could show safety problems with a particular product or line of 
products--this is the so-called ``grandfather'' provision; 
manufacturers must notify the FDA before any new ingredients are 
marketed. At the same time, we provided the FDA with the full range of 
enforcement mechanisms to act against unsafe or misbranded supplements, 
including seizure, injunction, civil monetary penalties and even 
criminal penalties.
  When Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman expressed lingering 
concerns that an unsafe product might be marketed and FDA would not 
have adequate authority to act against it, we added a new tool--
imminent hazard--so that the Secretary could take immediate action 
against a product that he believed poses an imminent hazard to public 
health. I might add, the definition as to what constitutes an 
``imminent hazard'' is entirely up to the Department of Health and 
Human Services, so this is a very broad authority.
  Even so, there are some who believe that dietary supplements should 
not be marketed in the United States without a preclearance similar to 
that for pharmaceuticals. We who drafted and passed DSHEA along with 
millions of Americans were persuaded that was not necessary.
  First, most supplements cannot be patented, so there is little 
incentive for manufacturers to undergo the expensive and time-consuming 
FDA approval process.
  Second, many supplements have been used safely for literally 
centuries, if

[[Page 27190]]

not millennia, so it is not necessary to subject them to the approval 
process. That was why even the most liberal members felt comfortable 
with the grandfather structure.
  Finally, we added a provision so that FDA would have the time to 
examine any ingredient not previously marketed and the evidence of its 
safety before that product actually reached the stores.
  When we drafted DSHEA, ensuring the safety of products was at the 
forefront of our efforts. The law gives the FDA abundant tools to 
remove products that are unsafe from the market. It includes a safety 
standard that was carefully crafted with Senator Kennedy and 
Representatives Dingell and Waxman, the chairs of FDA-related panels in 
1994.
  There is no excuse for a supplement manufacturer to market products 
that are unsafe or inaccurately labeled or that make outlandish claims. 
Unfortunately, a small number of irresponsible supplement companies are 
taking advantage of consumers. I contend that the law is adequate to 
deal with them if FDA implements and enforces it. So, we come to the 
purpose of our amendment.
  In the nine-plus years since DSHEA was enacted, there has been too 
much talk that the law handcuffs FDA and too little effort to apply the 
law.
  It is impossible for this law to protect consumers if it is not 
enforced.
  I am not here to criticize the FDA or throw barbs. Frankly, the FDA 
under Commissioner Mark McClellan has done more to enforce DSHEA than 
the previous administration had. I credit Commissioner McClellan for 
his commitment to implement the law fully. I truly believe he wants to 
make this law work. Congress must support him.
  That is why I have joined with Senator Harkin to introduce the DSHEA 
Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2003, S. 1538. And that is 
why we are offering this amendment today, which we consider to be a 
down payment on S. 1538.
  Yes, there is a small number of products that do raise serious 
concerns. Ephedra is one. As I have done for many years, I urge the FDA 
to act definitively on this issue based on the best available science, 
not politics. If the agency deems that ephedra poses a significant or 
unreasonable risk of illness or injury when used as labeled, than the 
agency can and must move to take the product off the market. This has 
gone on for too long. That is the reason I am happy to cosponsor the 
companion amendment offered by Senator Durbin.
  Earlier this year, the FDA advised me it had received 3,000 comments 
and 12,000 letters in response to the agency's proposed rule-making on 
ephedra. This has obviously placed a burden on this tiny agency, which 
needs funding to complete the job it has undertaken.
  Indeed, as this example shows, the fight for resources is a huge 
challenge for FDA. The FDA simply does not have the staff or money it 
needs to do the job. In short, the agency is woefully underfunded, 
especially when it comes to dietary supplement regulation. That is the 
only reason I can see that the safety standard we enacted has never 
been invoked. That has to be the reason that it has taken almost a 
decade to promulgate the good manufacturing practice standards that can 
help guarantee the safety, the purity, and the accurate labeling of 
products. And that must be the reason that a product like 
androstenedione, which I believe is not even a dietary supplement, 
continues to be marketed in this country.
  I have been very concerned about the safety of steroid precursor 
products like andro--and especially when they fall into the hands of 
our youth.
  That is why I have joined with Senator Biden, Senator Harkin and 
Senator Grassley to cosponsor the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, S. 
1780, that will add andro and other steroid precursors, as well as THG, 
to the list of controlled substances. I intend for the Judiciary 
Committee to make adoption of S. 1780 a priority, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting both S. 1780 and S. 1538.
  We have a very solid dietary supplement law that can deal with 
problems that arise. But, the FDA must use that law for it to be 
effective, and Congress must support the agency in that effort.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  This language has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2090) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, 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.


               Beaver Control Cost-share Program in Maine

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee. As the chairman of this subcommittee, my good friend from 
Utah is no doubt aware of the important role that wildlife services 
provided by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have 
in managing and protecting wildlife. I am pleased that the subcommittee 
maintained funding for these operations as many States, including my 
own, depend on the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government to 
meet the growing demands for wildlife services. Given the need for 
beaver management in my State, I would ask the Chairman to work to have 
APHIS continue providing cooperative beaver management services in 
Maine.
  The State's Cooperative Beaver Management Program (CBMP) was 
established in 1995 by Maine Wildlife Services as a cooperative effort 
between State, Federal, and local governments to provide services to 
landholders, the Maine Department of Transportation, towns and 
municipalities who are experiencing problems caused by beavers. With 
the cost-share agreement between the State and APHIS, CBMP has been 
able to mitigate beaver related property, road, water, and 
environmental damage.
  A reduction in cost share assistance to Maine would have a severe 
impact on many of the State's public resources and roadways. Beaver-
flooded roadways endanger the driving public while beaver-flooded sewer 
and septic systems create a health hazard as well as incur significant 
repair expenses. In addition to helping avoid costly repairs to our 
public infrastructure, cost-share assistance to the CBMP can reduce 
damage to private logging roads that are important to the forest 
products based local economies. It reduces environmental damage, such 
as erosion, sedimentation, and habitat degradation, caused by road 
wash-outs.
  The State of Maine reports that the CBMP provides significant 
benefits to the public in a very effective way. For example, in fiscal 
year 2002 CBMP activities prevented the loss of, or damage to, $1.3 
million in resources. For the driving public, the benefits are 
particularly significant. The program saved $500,000 in roadway repair 
costs by alleviating flooded roads and rights-of way along the 
interstate and other State maintained highways. Comparing the cost of 
the program to the value of resources saved gives a cost-benefit ratio 
of 1 to 10. In other words, for every dollar spent, ten dollars were 
saved over the long-term.
  Ever since the creation of the CBMP in 1995, funding has remained 
level. Under this agreement Maine has received $75,000 annually. In 
recent years, however, demand for CBMP services has outstripped program 
funding thereby limiting the State's ability to prevent property damage 
and threats to human health and safety. Additionally, the State is 
concerned that highway safety is being compromised because of flooding 
caused by beaver dams.
  I recognize that the subcommittee has worked to maintain APHIS 
wildlife services in the face of budget limitations. I appreciate the 
chairman's effort to continue this program and thank the chairman for 
considering options to address the unique beaver management needs in 
Maine.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for 
bringing this issue to my attention. It is evident that the funding 
used for Maine's

[[Page 27191]]

Cooperative Beaver Management Program has been used wisely. I expect 
APHIS to continue its cooperative wildlife agreements with the funding 
provided by the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill, and I 
will work in conference to see that these funds continue to be 
available for the State of Maine.


               Improving Emergency Communications Systems

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 added new a new provision of the Rural Electrification Act 
giving the Rural Utilities Service, (RUS), Administrator the authority 
to make loans ``to expand or improve 911 access and integrated 
emergency communications systems in rural areas.''
  This new provision was in response to the pressing need in rural 
America to upgrade and improve the ability to communicate in times of 
individual and mass emergencies.
  In the wake of 9/11 there is no higher telecommunications priority 
than to ensure that communications systems work best when they are 
needed most.
  Senator Clinton and I proposed the emergency communications provision 
in the Agriculture Appropriations bill to give life to that new section 
of the Rural Electrification Act.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I am pleased to join the Senator from Montana in this 
initiative. Last week the Federal Communications Commission held a two 
day meeting on their E-911 Initiative. One issue that requires both 
attention and resources is access to modern emergency communications in 
rural areas. I was pleased that Ed Cameron represented the Rural 
Utilities Service at that meeting and reminded the participants of the 
long partnership the agency has had with rural telephone consumers and 
carriers and the commitment Administrator Hilda Gay Legg has to 
improving safety in rural areas.
  Mr. BURNS. The Rural Utilities Service, through its talented staff of 
engineers, operations specialists can play an important role in 
ensuring that emergency responders can communicate in rural and remote 
areas.
  The Burns-Clinton provision in this appropriations bill would not 
increase or decrease spending, but would give the administrator of the 
RUS the flexibility to use funding from several sources within the 
agency to give emergency communications projects in rural areas the 
high priority they deserve. It also gives the RUS Administrator a 
source of loan funds which compliment the grant funds available for 
emergency communications systems in the Community Facilities program.
  Mrs. CLINTON. It is our intent that this funding flexibility not come 
at the expense of other worthy RUS loan or grant programs.
  Mr. BURNS. That is correct. At any given time, there are authorities 
which are oversubscribed and others which are undersubscribed. This 
provision gives the Administrator flexibility to use underutilized 
funds for this high priority purpose.
  As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, I will seek 
Conference report language to clarify that funding would be available 
to current and prospective RUS borrowers and that a wide range of 
projects be eligible for funding including 911 upgrades, broad 
emergency communications initiatives, statewide emergency 
communications projects which include rural areas and projects that 
provide a dual public safety and commercial uses.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I strongly support the Senator's effort in this regard. 
As States and localities in rural parts of New York, Montana and across 
the country struggle to find sufficient funds to upgrade public safety 
radio and data systems, there are new opportunities to combine public 
safety needs with commercial efforts to deploy new wireless and 
broadband networks. These dual use networks also have the advantage of 
generating revenues which can be used to pay back loans under this 
section while bringing advanced voice and data capabilities to rural 
areas. As my colleague from Montana and I both know through our efforts 
with the Congressional E-911 Caucus, these funds would represent just a 
first step in the direction of ensuring deployment of a ubiquitous 911 
system across our country.
  Mr. BURNS. The emergency communications amendment will help ensure 
that rural America does not fall on the wrong side of a public safety 
divide.


                          NRCS Clarifications

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Senator Bennett, 
for his outstanding work on the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.
  I would also like to take the opportunity to clarify three provisions 
that it contains. Upon reviewing the bill I wish to bring to your 
attention three changes I hope can be incorporated in the statement of 
managers. First, I request that two separate projects, described as Old 
Canton Road and Watkins Drive in the current bill, be combined to 
include the same overall funding amount and read as follows: ``The 
Conference agreement provides $350,000 for erosion control and drainage 
improvements in Hinds County, Mississippi.'' Second, I request that 
reference to a specific floodwater retarding structure be removed from 
language regarding Town Creek in Tupelo, MS, and that the statement of 
managers read as follows: ``The Conference agreement provides funds for 
the agency to continue assistance for the Town Creek in Lee County, 
Mississippi.'' Finally, I request that funding for Oaklimeter 
Watershed, as provided through the Conservation Operations section of 
the bill, be provided instead through the Watershed and Flood Control 
section.
  I would ask that the chairman work to incorporate these changes to 
this bill.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from 
Mississippi bringing these changes to my attention and will work with 
him to incorporate them in the statement of managers.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman for his assistance in clarifying 
these issues and for his leadership as we complete work on this bill.


                            animal fighting

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your help addressing a long-
standing concern of mine--the need for greater enforcement by USDA of 
the Federal law regarding animal fighting. Earlier this year, I and 
many of our colleagues--a bipartisan group of 38 other Senators--
requested $800,000 to enable USDA's Office of Inspector General to 
focus on strengthening enforcement of the Federal animal fighting law. 
I am grateful that you were able, in the committee report, to include 
this $800,000 for the OIG to improve enforcement in this area.
  However, I did want to ask the chairman for a bit of clarification on 
this item, as it was included in the committee report. I noted that the 
report provides ``an increase of $800,000 for OIG to address violations 
of the Animal Welfare Act and to coordinate with State and local law 
enforcement personnel in this effort.'' Would the chairman be willing 
to clarify that this funding would be used specifically to improve 
enforcement of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, which deals 
exclusively with animal fighting, rather than having these funds used 
to enforce the entire Animal Welfare Act? This clarification could be 
finalized in conference.
  Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I will work with the House of Representatives 
during conference negotiations to ensure that the $800,000 is provided 
to address animal fighting.
  Mr. ALLARD. Senator Kohl, is it your intention as well that this 
funding would be used specifically to improve enforcement of Section 26 
of the Animal Welfare Act?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes. I agree with what Chairman Bennett has said regarding 
the committee's intentions, and will work with him to make sure this is 
clear in the final bill.
  Mr. ALLARD. I'm grateful to both of you for your help and leadership 
on this issue.


                      NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

  Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the 
distinguished

[[Page 27192]]

chairman to clarify the intent of language included in the Senate 
report regarding studies and evaluations in the Nutrition Programs 
Administration account. In our Senate report, we have included language 
stating that the committee is providing $3,195,000, the same as the 
fiscal year 2003 level, for studies and evaluations in the Nutrition 
Programs Administration Account.
  I have since been contacted by USDA noting that the $3,195,000 
provided in fiscal year 2003 was actually an increase over their base 
funding. Therefore, the question becomes whether our intent was simply 
to maintain $3,195,000 in funding for studies and evaluations, or to 
maintain the $3,195,000 increase provided in fiscal year 2003. It is 
may belief that our intention was to maintain the increase, and while I 
believe we should clarify this in the Statement of Managers during 
conference negotiations, I also wanted to mention it during our Senate 
debate.
  Is it your understanding that it was our intention to maintain the 
increase in funding provided in this account?
  Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and I 
agree our intention was to maintain increased funding for studies and 
evaluations.


                       rus telemedicine language

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Senator Bennett, 
for his outstanding work on the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill.
  Upon review of the bill, I request that the following language be 
included in the statement of the managers:

       The conferees are aware of and encourage the Secretary to 
     support the utilization of remote telemedicine services 
     capable of transmitting medical information in both real-time 
     and stored scenarios for diagnosis, medical monitoring and 
     emergency purposes. Furthermore, the conferees recognize the 
     need for integration and interoperability of real-time remote 
     mobile medical technology with other devices, systems and 
     services which together offer increased capabilities, 
     functionality, and levels of care.

  I would ask that the Chairman work to incorporate this language in 
the bill.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from 
Mississippi bringing this language to my attention and will work with 
him to incorporate it in the statement of the managers.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman for his assistance with this 
language and for his leadership as we complete work on this bill.


     national agriculture statistics service potato pricing survey

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies regarding the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service--NASS--and the potato size and 
grade survey.
  The NASS provides critical information to growers, processors, 
shippers, and all other segments of the agricultural industry. Its 
history of doing so reaches back to the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln 
and travels forward in time to the present, where those in the 
agricultural industry now rely heavily on information for planting and 
pricing decisions.
  Of great importance to my State and others is the information NASS 
provides regarding the potato size and grade survey. The intent of this 
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. 
This unbiased information will be used by all parties when negotiating 
sale or purchase contracts of processing potatoes.
  The National Potato Council--NPC, 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 
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.
  Given the importance of the potato industry to the United States, I 
wish to add language to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations 
Act that simply asks the NASS to continue its work on the potato size 
and grade survey within the available funds of the agency.
  I would ask the chairman and ranking member, given the subcommittee's 
continued support for NASS, whether it is also the Committee's intent 
to continue the vital work of this survey?
  Mr. BENNETT. I understand the Senator's interest in this important 
survey. The Senator is correct that the committee intends that the 
Department maintain this important work. We will continue to work with 
the Senator in this area as this bill moves forward.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator's comments and agree that this 
work merits appropriate emphasis in our upcoming conference on 
Agriculture appropriations.


                           ALKALINE DIGESTER

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to engage my good friend and 
colleague Senator Bennett, the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding 
funding for an alkaline digester for Kansas State University. This 
digester will be used to conduct important animal disease research to 
protect the United States from an agroterrorist attack.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would be pleased.
  Mr. ROBERTS. The published committee report for this legislation 
indicates that $225,000 has been provided for the digester. However, I 
understand this is typographical error and the Committee has actually 
provided $1 million. Is that correct?
  Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chairman for his support.


                      ALLIANCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chairman for your hard work on this 
appropriations bill. I would like to bring to your attention a 
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service project 
that is funded in the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill, 
the Alliance for Food Protection. At the time which the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture Appropriations marked up the fiscal year 2004 bill, I had 
not been notified that the work on this project had been completed.
  Mr. BENNETT. How does the Senator from Georgia wish to proceed since 
$268,000 has been designated in this bill for the Alliance for Food 
Protection project?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. My intention, with the Chairman's approval, of course, 
would be to move the funding designated for the Alliance for Food 
Protection project to the Cooperative State Research, Education and 
Extension Service Integrated Fruit and Vegetable research project which 
is in Cooperation with the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension 
Service.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his explanation, 
and I will be happy to work with him during conference to address his 
concerns.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I appreciate the Chairman's cooperation with my 
request.


          RELOCATING THE WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
provisions in the Agriculture appropriations bill before the Senate 
would in no way affect the proposed reorganization of the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service's field laboratory structure. Does the 
Senator from Utah agree with that interpretation?
  Mr. BENNETT. That is my understanding as well.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Is the Senator aware that the Wildlife Habitat 
Management Institute, an NRCS facility in Jackson, MS, is unique among 
NRCS facilities in that it is a ``virtual institute'' which draws on 
staff from all across the country to develop innovative habitat 
management recommendations for landowners?

[[Page 27193]]


  Mr. BENNETT. I was not.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Would the Senator agree that relocating this Institute, 
given its unique organization and the dispersion of its staff, would 
not yield significant savings or efficiency?
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Given this information, would it be the intent of the 
subcommittee that the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute remain in 
its current location and excluded from the reorganization?
  Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with the 
distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee.


                        chronic wasting disease

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I appreciate the work that you have done 
in regard to funding for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). As you know, 
this is a fatal neurological disease of farmed and wild elk and deer 
that belongs to the family of diseases known as transmissible 
spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's). My State of New Mexico is 
inhabited with ample numbers of elk and deer. The elk are oftentimes 
harvested by hunters who get each animal tested for CWD. With that in 
mind, there continues to be a demand for the State to provide hunters 
with an accessible location that can perform the test in a timely 
fashion.
  The State of New Mexico is a Tier I State, which means a confirmed 
case of CWD has been discovered and the disease is present. I am 
hopeful that the final version of the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill will provide the opportunity for the State of New 
Mexico to work in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture to 
establish an approved CWD testing facility. The State of New Mexico has 
requested approval of a proposal to establish, equip, and operate a 
laboratory to conduct a rapid screening test for CWD in the New Mexico 
elk and deer population. This would be done at State expense.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from New Mexico and will encourage 
the Department of Agriculture to review the current situation. If the 
review warrants a testing facility, I will suggest that the Department 
of Agriculture consider establishing a testing facility in the State of 
New Mexico.


       NutriCore Northeast and Geisinger Rural Aging Study (GRAS)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition of the chairman 
of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to bring to his 
attention two projects that are of great importance to the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania: NutriCore Northeast and Geisinger Rural Aging Study.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am more than willing to acknowledge my 
colleague from Pennsylvania with regard to his two projects.
  Mr. SPECTER. NutriCore Northeast would be a self-managed and 
ultimately self-sustaining not-for-profit corporation existing in 
Pennsylvania working in a cooperative research and development 
agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture to provide a 
50-year road map assessing progress toward a healthy and fit populace. 
Additionally, Geisinger Rural Aging Study is a USDA Agricultural 
Research Service cohort study of 21,646 rural older Pennsylvanians that 
would assist them with proper dietary intake as well as formulate a 
longitudinal nutrition database. I am hopeful that we can work together 
to consider these requests as you complete action on the bill.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my distinguished colleague for bringing these 
important projects to my attention. While this committee is working 
within a very tight budget, I will give your requests all due 
consideration.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am keenly aware of the tight budgetary constraints 
under which you are operating, and I appreciate whatever assistance you 
may be able to provide with respect to these requests.


                           food aid programs

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, currently, USDA does not distinguish 
between white (food grade) sorghum and yellow feed grade sorghum in our 
food aid programs. Unfortunately, sorghum that is used to make animal 
and pet food, or used to make ethanol, is being sent to African 
countries where people have been eating sorghum for generations. In 
fact, sorghum originated in Africa. They are keenly aware of the 
difference between the food grade sorghum that they eat and the feed 
grade sorghum that is fed to cattle. It is my view that USDA should 
provide recipient countries with sorghum that has the food qualities 
and characteristics with which the people receiving the aid are 
familiar.
  Mr. BENNETT. I understand the Senator's concern and would also like 
to see that USDA make that distinction.
  Mr. ROBERTS. By all appearances, the demand for sorghum in our food 
aid will be growing in the near future. USAID has doubled the amount of 
sorghum programmed in food aid over the past three years. My sorghum 
farmers are appreciative of this fact. I think both of us want USAID 
and USDA to provide food aid recipients with the commodity that they 
want, whenever the commodity is available in the market place.
  Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the chairman for his support.


              eliminating avian influenza in rhode island

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinghished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as my colleague from Rhode Island, 
Senator Chafee, regarding the presence of Avian Influenza in Rhode 
Island. Since March of this year, the Rhode Island Department of 
Environmental Management's Division of Agriculture has been working to 
contain an outbreak of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza in a poultry 
operation in Foster, Rhode Island, as well as a live bird market in 
Providence. The virus has been definitively identified as H7N2 Avian 
Influenza, of the same genetic sequence as the virus recently found in 
nearby poultry operations in Connecticut. Little Rhody Farms, the last 
of the traditional egg houses in Rhode Island, currently houses 32,000 
hens producing brown eggs for sale in markets and food stores. Sales 
and distribution of eggs from the farm have declined due to customers' 
concerns that the produce may be tainted, and a federally imposed 
quarantine that has frozen the operation at half capacity. To eliminate 
the risk of the disease spreading further and to give the farm a 
greater chance to survive, state officials have strongly recommended 
depopulating the infected flock and disinfecting the premises. We have 
been unable to secure financial assistance from USDA to make 
depopulation possible.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member to 
include language in the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture, Rural 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to direct USDA's 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to provide assistance to 
Rhode Island Egg producers who have depopulated their flocks.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl, for giving us an 
opportunity to discuss this matter on the floor. Let me just underscore 
a few of the points that Senator Reed has made.
  First, everyone involved with this situation agrees that depopulation 
is the best strategy for dealing with the problem. The Rhode Island 
Division of Agriculture, the State Veterinarian, and the farmer favor 
depopulation and disinfection. And I understand that APHIS has been 
successful in taking this approach with poultry operations in Virginia 
and Texas.
  Second, it is evident that without some compensation, the farm will 
face bankruptcy. Maintaining the viability of Rhode Island's family 
farms is a critical element of our efforts to preserve the state's 
character, as well as the natural landscape.
  Third, I am told that in rare circumstances, low pathogenic forms of 
avian influenza can transform into high pathogenic organisms that pose 
serious threats to human health. Not surprisingly, the presence of 
avian influenza on American poultry and egg

[[Page 27194]]

farms is a matter of grave concern to our trading partners. No one 
wants to give the virus and opportunity to mutate.
  Given the risks associated with avian influenza and the clear 
evidence that the current protocol was not successful in containing the 
original Connecticut outbreak, I am anxious to find a solution to this 
problem. I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us, 
and hope that language directing APHIS to provide the necessary 
financial assistance can be included in the bill.
  Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate Senator Chafee and Senator Reed bringing 
this situation in Rhode Island to the attention of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee. For all of the reasons that my colleagues 
have raised, I agree that it makes sense to try to eradicate this 
organism from American poultry flocks. I look forward to working with 
the two Senators and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator 
Kohl, to develop language that directs APHIS to play an active role in 
depopulating these flocks in Rhode Island.
  Mr. KOHL. I rise to join Senator Reed and Senator Chafee in 
expressing my concern about this outbreak of Low-Path Avian Influenza 
in Rhode Island. This disease has resulted in substantial losses in 
poultry producers in several states and, in response, Congress has 
previously directed APHIS to help poultry producers cover costs 
associated with depopulating infected flocks. I agree with the 
importance of doing what we can to prevent avian influenza from 
threatening the livelihood of poultry operations in Rhode Island and 
southern New England. I will work with the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman and try to include language in the fiscal year 2004 
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
bill to ensure that APHIS provides assistance with depopulation of 
infected flocks in Rhode Island.


                 southern plains range research station

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Chairman Bennett faces many difficult 
funding decisions as he puts together this year's bill. I appreciate 
the work he has done in a challenging job. I rise today regarding the 
United States Department of Agriculture Southern Plains Range Research 
Station in Woodward, OK.
  As you know, the Agricultural Research Service is currently 
undergoing a facility modernization at the Southern Plains Range 
Research Station in Woodward. I submitted a request for Phase II 
funding to allow the ARS to complete construction of the facility and 
begin realizing the benefits that this facility will bring to both the 
ARS and the Woodward community.
  The Research Station provides economic opportunities for the citizens 
of Woodward, OK and contributes to USDA's mission of building a 
competitive agriculture economy while enhancing the natural resources 
base in the Southern Plains.
  This funding is necessary to implement the recommendations of the 
recent ARS review of facility needs at SPRRS: construction of a new 
greenhouse, a new laboratory, an office building, and new parking 
structures and site upgrades. According to USDA, ``The [SPRRS] 
laboratories are in dire need of repair and renovation.'' This 
modernization is necessary for SPRRS to employ cutting-edge techniques 
and procedures in rangeland and pasture research.
  It is my hope that you will work with me to provide the funds 
necessary to complete construction at the USDA Southern Plains Range 
Research Station in Woodward, OK.
  Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate my colleague's comments and the opportunity 
to discuss the USDA Southern Plains Range Research Station. I am aware 
of this project's importance to Oklahoma and the Oklahoma delegation. 
My colleague is uniquely aware of the constraints of the budget we must 
work within, and of the many areas in need of funding. I look forward 
to working with my colleague to address the issue of funding for Phase 
II of construction at the Southern Plains Range Research Station in 
Woodward.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the difficult challenges that the Chairman 
is facing as he puts together the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill. I thank him for his attention to this very important need and for 
his willingness to work with me to address this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Bennett and Senator 
Kohl for their help in obtaining funds for cranberry research in the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. Cranberry production is an issue of 
great importance to Massachusetts, and I hope that the Manager's will 
continue to work with Senator Kerry and me to obtain $280,000 for the 
University of Massachusetts Cranberry Station in Wareham for a complete 
renovation of the State Cranberry Bog.
  The State Cranberry Bog provides income for Cranberry Station 
operations. More importantly, it is a research site for the Cranberry 
Station faculty and students. The bog is especially useful for 
conducting research not appropriate for cranberry farms in production. 
The faculty and students are able to use the facility to conduct 
research on new pesticide alternatives, or research that involves 
changes in practices not yet adopted by farmers.
  Unfortunately, over time, the average yield of the state facility has 
declined because of its research activities, and the bog itself, built 
on peat, has begun to sink. The funds that Senator Kerry and I have 
requested will be used for a complete renovation of the bog, so that 
the Cranberry Station will again be able to conduct cutting-edge 
research plant physiology, pest and nutrient management, and irrigation 
management. The renovation will also enhance the Station's ability to 
demonstrate new technologies and practices as part of its educational 
mission. All of these activities contribute to both the economic health 
of the local economy and the overall vitality of the nation's cranberry 
industry.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I again express my appreciation to Chairman 
Bennett and Senator Kohl for their assistance in developing the Fiscal 
Year 2004 Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill and their ongoing 
assistance to the Cranberry farmers in Massachusetts who are facing 
economic difficulties. I would like to express my support for the 
comments made by Senator Kennedy regarding funding for Cranberry 
research in the Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture appropriations conference 
report. This important research will develop new technologies to help 
improve yields of cranberry bogs and help these farmers maintain their 
livelihood. I look forward to working with the Managers of this 
legislation to make sure this program receives funding in the 
Conference Report. I appreciate the Managers' attention to this matter.
  Mr. Kohl. Since Wisconsin is also one of the top-producing cranberry 
states in the country, I recognize the need to support innovative 
research within this industry. I will continue to work with Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Kerry on this issue, and I will do what I can to be 
of assistance.


                       Funding for Seafood Safety

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Bennett and Senator 
Kohl for their effective work on the Agriculture appropriations bill. I 
particularly commend Senator Kohl for his help in obtaining $422,000 
for Seafood Safety in Massachusetts. I'm hopeful that two worthwhile 
research programs--the Safe Seafood Project at the University of 
Massachusetts in Amherst, and the Center for Marine Phytoremediation 
Technologies at Northeastern University will be funded in the Fiscal 
Year 2004 Agriculture appropriations conference report.
  In recent years, the Department of Agriculture, through the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services, has 
awarded grants to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst for their 
work on the Safe Seafood Project. The goal of this project is to 
provide useful, science-based recommendations to enhance the seafood 
industry's potential for producing safe, economically viable products. 
It is essential for the project to receive funding again this year in 
order to continue

[[Page 27195]]

its essential work on seafood quality and health.
  Northeastern University is also an impressive research university on 
marine issues. Funding will be used by the Center for Marine 
Phytoremediation Technologies to develop techniques employing marine 
plants to eliminate pollutants that result from fish aquaculture, as 
well as toxic materials found in our waters, such as mercury and TNT. 
The Center will also establish methods for restoring seagrass habitats 
where they have been destroyed.
  We know that waste from the increasing number of fish aquaculture 
facilities leads to the production of harmful algae and the destruction 
of other marine life. If these problems continue, the fish aquaculture 
industry cannot be sustained, since it will cause greater risks in 
eating fish, and also endanger seagrass habitats, which are critical to 
the coastal economy of many states.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman Bennett and Senator 
Kohl for their work in developing the Fiscal Year 2004 Senate 
Agriculture Appropriations bill. Their work is especially noteworthy 
because of the difficult authorization level set by the Budget 
Resolution. I would like to express my support for the comments made by 
Senator Kennedy  regarding the Center of Marine Phytoremediation 
Technologies at Northeastern University. The Center has developed a 
proposal which I believe is an important opportunity to develop new 
technologies and help eliminate pollutants from fish aquaculture. This 
research can help the marine life in our oceans and eliminate 
pollutants from the seafood we enjoy. It is my hope that Senator 
Kennedy and I could work with the Manager's of this legislation to make 
sure that these important programs receive funding in the Fiscal Year 
2004 Agriculture appropriations conference report.
  Mr. KOHL. I agree with both Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry on the 
importance of funding food safety initiatives, and I am glad we were 
able to obtain funding for seafood safety research in Massachusetts.
  The University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Northeastern University 
have impressive programs vital to improving marine issues and seafood 
safety. I will continue to work with both Senator Kennedy  and Senator 
Kerry, as the bill progresses, and do what I can to see that these 
resources are available to these institutions.


                            Section 306 (a)

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to address a provision 
that Chairman Bennett has added to the manager's amendment to the 
fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill on my behalf.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would be happy if Senator Murkowski 
explained this provision in greater detail.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. The provision in question makes the Alaska Department 
of Community and Economic Development eligible to receive a water and 
waste disposal grant under section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and 
Rural Development Act in an amount that is equal to not more than 75 
percent of the total cost of providing water and sewer service to the 
proposed hospital in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in Alaska. In 
addition, this provision allows the funds to be passed through the 
department to the local governmental entity that will do the water and 
sewer work on the hospital. This local governmental entity will be 
chosen by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like Ms. Murkowski to explain her 
rationale for including this provision in the manager's amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. This new hospital project will be an economic boon for 
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Currently, there is a hospital in 
Palmer, which is one of the larger communities in the borough. However, 
this is the only full-service hospital in the entire borough. This 
borough, which is the home to many people who commute to work in 
Anchorage, has grown a great deal over the years. In fact, the 
borough's population is projected to double in the next ten years. 
Therefore, a new hospital is needed in this borough. This proposed 
hospital will be located halfway between the communities of Wasilla and 
Palmer and will be more easily accessible to more of the borough's 
residents.
  Currently, the site on which the proposed hospital will be located 
does not have a water or sewer connection. Therefore, such a connection 
is critical to the success of the hospital project, which will serve so 
many people in a high-growth area in my State.
  Please allow me to share with you some details on the economic effect 
that this hospital project will have on the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 
It will create 680 full time and part time construction jobs during the 
first phase of the construction. Once the hospital is complete, 1,200 
to 1,800 new jobs will be created through new hospital operations. It 
will add $22.8 million in construction labor income. The new hospital 
will pay approximately $1.3 million in local property taxes and will 
produce a total of $2.08 million in local and State revenues from 
construction and another $3.84 million from new hospital operations.
  These statistics don't begin to depict the more significant 
statistics on lives saved and people healed. This project is a win-win 
for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the State of Alaska. It will have 
the single largest positive impact on the borough's economy for the 
next decade. More importantly, it will yield the single largest 
positive impact on the health of the community and residents, as well.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski for explaining 
the need for her provision in the manager's amendment to this important 
legislation.


                              ARS Research

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Agriculture to highlight a USDA agency that does extremely good work in 
my home State of Arkansas. First, I want to commend the chairman's 
efforts to provide resources to our Nation's most important 
agricultural and rural development priorities. It has been a difficult 
task and I appreciate your dedication.
  In particular, I want to thank the chairman for his efforts to 
continue the necessary support for agricultural research, both within 
the USDA and with the State university partners. The USDA Agricultural 
Research Service is a critical agency in this effort. With the 
leadership of the chairman, I am pleased to note that ARS research will 
continue to have the strong support of Congress.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator and I share her assessment of the 
importance of agricultural research and the value of the USDA and its 
State partners.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. The USDA ARS has a small, but vital presence in 
Arkansas. For example, is the chairman aware that my home State ranks 
seventh in the Nation in total net farm income?
  Mr. BENNETT. I did not know that.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes. In fact, few States in the Nation, and none in the 
South, are blessed with a higher percentage of their economic activity 
dependent upon agriculture than is Arkansas. I am also aware that 
traditionally, however, the ARS presence in Arkansas has been 
surprisingly small, especially in relation to the importance of 
agriculture to the economy and size of your contribution to the net 
farm income of the United States.
  Mr. BENNETT. In spite of this, I know that the research conducted in 
Arkansas benefits us all.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes, that is certainly true. We are proud of the ARS 
presence that we do have and the impact of its research on the Nation 
as a whole. The research that has been generated from Arkansas 
locations has been of great importance to the rice, poultry, small 
fruits, and aquaculture industries of the U.S. Additionally, the 
breakthroughs in human nutrition research that have come from the ARS 
human nutrition center in Arkansas have been remarkable. In light of 
the great importance of the research work being

[[Page 27196]]

carried out at the ARS or ARS-supported research centers in Arkansas, I 
urge your continued support and ask that every effort be made, 
including in conference, to insure that the ARS units in Arkansas enter 
the 2004 fiscal year with no less than the same fiscal resources that 
they had in 2003. Additionally, I ask the chairman's assistance in 
working with Members of the House who will be on the conference 
committee to adopt the most favorable funding recommendations that are 
brought into conference by either House.
  Mr. BENNETT. I share the Senator's commitment to agricultural 
research and to the ARS. And, I recognize the importance of the ARS 
research conducted in Arkansas to your State, to the region, and to the 
Nation. During our conference deliberations with the House, I will keep 
the importance of these research activities in mind. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues from the House in conference to insure the 
highest level of funding possible taking into consideration national 
research priorities. I am sure the Arkansas units will rank highly on 
that list of priorities. I thank the Senator for bringing this 
important matter to my attention.


                     travel and purchase card abuse

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa brought an issue to 
me which he hopes to remedy through Agriculture Appropriations. The 
issue involves the Department of Agriculture and the documented fraud 
and abuse occurring within both the purchase and travel card programs. 
I would like to ask the Senator from Iowa for further clarification.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the chairman for his interest in this issue. 
Additionally, I want to thank him for his concern regarding credit card 
abuse. Working together I'm confident we can help USDA remedy this 
issue.
  As Chairman Bennett knows, the Department's own Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) has stated that USDA's travel card program is plagued 
with problems including fraud, abusive ATM usage, ``bounded'' check 
payments, and lack of specific travel card policies and penalties. Many 
of these problems still remain unchecked despite recommendations from 
an OIG audit over 5 years ago.
  USDA employees accumulated over $5.8 million in fraudulent charges in 
a six-month period. The majority of these charges were racked up when 
individuals were not even on travel. Purchases were made at The Gap, 
Bath and Body, Cigarettes for Less, Tatoo and More Ink, and an Oregon 
Liquor Store. They also included 900 trips to Wal-Mart, K-Mart and 
Target; tickets to Ozzy Osbourne, and automotive payments including the 
purchase of a $6,000 vehicles.
  This is a clear abuse of government-issued cards and the trust 
embodied in these employees. Despite individuals signing an agreement 
acknowledging that the travel card is solely for work-related travel 
this abuse continues. The travel card is not meant to be a line of 
credit for employees, or to be used by individuals as a personal credit 
card. There is no excuse for this type of abuse.
  When I was first made aware of this abuse I asked how this was 
allowed to occur at USDA. What I found was outdated or non-existent 
internal controls that do nothing more than provide lip-service to the 
concept of accountability. USDA's travel card program is operating 
under 19-year old regulations. Nineteen years ago our banking 
infrastructure was fundamentally different than it is today. Nineteen 
years ago we didn't even have ATM's!
  In fact, ATM's pose the single most significant vulnerability to 
travel card misuse due to cash advances fees and other bank surcharges. 
During the six month review by the OIG, ATM transactions cost the 
government more than $137,000 in advance fees. There is chronic and 
intentional misuse with ATM withdrawals, for example, nearly $200,000 
was withdrawn to pay personal debts during the six-month review period.
  If that isn't bad enough, when individuals leave the department they 
don't always surrender their travel card! So individuals are out using 
the travel card as a personal credit card. OIG found that 1,549 
individuals still had cards that could be used despite their departure 
from the Department. One individual was using his travel card nearly 2 
years after he left the department!
  OIG identified $650,000 in returned checks, stop payment fees and 
returned check fees in just a six-month period. A little diligence up 
front could prevent millions of dollars in fraudulent purchases.
  I would point out that USDA has made recent efforts to limit abuse. 
USDA has attempted to reduce the number of credit card holders, revised 
departmental regulations on purchase cards, and instituted new system 
alerts to catch abusive transactions.
  With Chairman Bennett's help I plan to monitor the new efforts being 
made by USDA to remedy these problems I'm cautiously optimistic that 
USDA will recognize that the reforms must be successful, or we will 
establish new, more stringent reforms for USDA next year.
  Mr. BENNETT. I concur with my colleague's remarks. We will allow USDA 
to remedy the problems my colleague from Iowa has described. If USDA 
does not take action immediately and make substantive advances to fix 
these problems, we'll likely give them something more than 
encouragement in next year's agriculture appropriations legislation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to take a moment of the chairman and 
ranking members' time to discuss a project that has been supported by 
the committee since 1999. The Natural Resource Conservation Service 
(NRCS) in South Carolina and the Earth Sciences and Resources Institute 
at the University of South Carolina (ESRI-USC) have successfully 
developed technology to aid NRCS, both in South Carolina and throughout 
the Nation, to meet the needs of the agricultural community in a more 
effective and efficient manner. Over the years, the University of South 
Carolina has demonstrated their capabilities and the quality of their 
products while building a solid working partnership with the NRCS.
  The implementation of the software tools they developed has produced 
significant savings in manpower and cost for many of NRCS's 
conservation programs. For example, it is estimated that the man-hours 
needed to create waste management plans using the traditional paper-
based way was on the order of 230 man-hours per plan. Using the ESRI-
USC geographic information systems tools, this time requirement was 
reduced to just over 100 man-hours per plan--that is 130 man-hours 
saved per plan. The evolving products ESRI-USC has developed for 
comprehensive nutrient management planning have resulted in even 
greater time, and cost savings than the earlier tools. As a result of 
the use of another program, EQIP-for-the-Web, South Carolina NRCS has 
conservatively saved three man-years of effort. Using another tool, 
NASIS-for-the-Web, we estimate that this automated access to the soil 
survey reports results in five man-hours per day in NRCS personnel 
savings. There is also a benefit to the public, which can access these 
data via the Web. The time savings to foresters, engineers, farmers, 
and other users of soil survey data is enormous. There are over 170 
users of a particular program in 17 States and a user base in 31 
States.
  Consequently, I wish to continue to pursue this project at the next 
level and establish a Center of Excellence within ESRI-USC to assure a 
long-term, cost-effect means to provide a stable and sustained 
environment for the development of new technologies as well as support 
of existing capabilities such as AFOPro, C-Grax, NASIS for the Web, and 
EQIP for the Web. ESRI-USC's value added NRCS programs provide 
functional, rapidly developed and deployed applications that can be 
used by conservationists and field office staff level.
  Mr. KOHL. I would concur with my friend from South Carolina. I agree 
it is important for any federal agency to have the ability to establish 
the appropriate technology to provide functional, rapidly developed and 
deployed applications that can be used by the

[[Page 27197]]

field personal in a reliable, user friendly manner. Given the 
nationwide interest in their applications, it is time that the USDA 
seriously consider directly longer-term support with ESRI-USC.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the senior Senator from South Carolina for 
bringing this matter to my attention. I encourage you to pursue this 
designation with NRCS. Additionally, In encourage NRCS to give every 
consideration to the Senator's proposal.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my friend and colleague for your time. It may 
also be worth noting that Bruce Knight, Chief of NRCS recently visited 
the University this past April and was very impressed with their 
capabilities. He concurs that the work completed by ESRI-USC has been 
of high value to NRCS software development efforts.


                   ASSISTANCE TO THE MENOMINEE TRIBE

  Mr. KOHL. It has recently come to my attention that the Menominee 
Indian Tribe in Wisconsin is in need of additional assistance from 
Rural Development. The latest poverty figures indicate 60 percent of 
rural Americans who are living in poverty reside in census tracks 
containing or adjacent to Indian reservations. Unfortunately, 50 
percent of the members residing on the three reservations of the 
Menominee Tribe in my State of Wisconsin live below the poverty rate 
with less than 72 percent of children receiving a high school diploma. 
Unemployment exceeds 20 percent. The Department of Agriculture needs to 
consider meritorious applications for water and waste and business 
development programs which will benefit this tribe.
  It is my intention that during our upcoming conference deliberations 
with the House, to include language in the statement of managers to 
support the consideration of an application in relation to the Mole 
Lake Water and Sewer System within the Water and Waste Loan and Grant 
account to address the current sanitary needs and provide opportunities 
to attract new homeowners. In addition, there is a need to construct a 
Menominee Mini-Mall Development project and the Forest Enterprises 
Technology Center to attract new businesses and create a business 
incubator. I intend to seek recognition that these two projects be 
included under the Rural Business Enterprise Grant account. Further, 
the Menominee Tribal Enterprises should receive consideration under the 
Intermediary Relending account to support small business loans and 
thereby, to provide sustainability to the community. The last request 
includes the Menominee Tribal Enterprises to be considered for the 
Rural Business Opportunity Grant in order to establish a business 
network including a market analysis.


                         Resource Conservation

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Resource conservation is an essential element 
of our Nation's agriculture programs that has proven to be very popular 
with farmers and ranchers. The incentives incorporated in programs such 
as the Farmland Protection Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, 
and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, have not only 
heightened the awareness and value of good conservation practices, but 
they have made it possible for families to continue limited production 
and be compensated for protecting fragile resources. The success of 
these programs is that family farms can retain their economic viability 
and continue to contribute to the stability of communities throughout 
the Nation.
  Conservation programs have touched on many fragile resources, but 
have not sufficiently encouraged the protection of the historic 
heritage that is embodied in historic buildings, structures, objects, 
and archaeological sites on farmland. Congress has declared that the 
spirit and direction of the nation is reflected in its historic 
heritage, and that the preservation of this heritage is in the public 
interest. Therefore, I believe we must work together to protect our 
common heritage embedded on these private lands.
  Senator Kohl, today I am requesting a report to the United States 
Congress from the United States Department of Agriculture evaluating 
their conservation programs under the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service with the objective of determining what affirmative and 
programmatic actions are being taken to conserve and protect 
archaeological and historical resources on agricultural lands. 
Furthermore, this report should also provide or suggest new methods or 
program modifications to the conservation programs which will increase 
the protection of historical and archaeological resources on 
agricultural lands and help determine the manner in which these type of 
lands can be included within the overall goal of natural resources 
protection.
  Finally, I am requesting that this report be completed within 120 
days of enactment of the FY04 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  Senator Kohl, will you support this request and work towards its 
inclusion in the final conference report of the FY 04 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill?
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for bringing this matter to my 
attention. I will work to include this provision during conference 
negotiations of this bill.


                    tree assistance program funding

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Senator Bennett 
and Senator Kohl for their effort on behalf of our Nation's farmers. At 
this time, I would like to engage them in a colloquy regarding the need 
to provide aid to the fruit orchards of Western New York through the 
Tree Assistance Program.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from New York for his kind remarks, 
and would be happy to engage in a colloquy with him.
  Mr. KOHL. I am also happy to engage in this colloquy with the Senator 
from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. As the Senators may know, New York is the third largest 
producer of tart cherries in the nation and Wayne County is the largest 
cherry-producing county in New York. Unfortunately, fruit orchards 
throughout Western New York sustained major damages as a result of a 3-
day long ice storm in April. Approximately 85 percent of the tart 
cherry trees in Wayne County were severely damaged or destroyed by the 
storm. Throughout the region, sweet cherry, peach, pear, apple and plum 
trees were destroyed by the violent ice storm. The impact that these 
losses are already having on the fruit tree industry in New York is 
devastating and will continue to effect growers in for years to come 
since it takes new trees over eight years to mature. In fact, it is 
estimated that losses resulting from this April's storms could reach a 
total of $15,000,000.
  Federal assistance is greatly needed to cover the expenses of 
removing and replacing the ruined trees. The Tree Assistance Program 
(TAP) was created in order to help farmers facing the challenges now 
faced by those in Western New York. The TAP provides assistance to 
eligible growers who have lost trees used for commercial purposes as a 
result of a natural disaster.
  Since its reauthorization, the TAP has yet to receive funding in 
order to carry out its mission. However, the House-passed version of 
the FY04 Agricultural Appropriations Act contains $5,000,000 in funding 
for the TAP program in order to provide assistance to the growers of 
Western New York. The inclusion of these funds in this year's USDA 
budget are extremely important to the long term health of the fruit 
industry in New York.
  Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New York, 
and assure him that I will take his concerns into consideration when 
conferencing the House and Senate bills.
  Mr. KOHL. I too, appreciate the difficulties facing these farmers, 
and will work with the chairman to do what we can during conference.


                  eelgrass restoration in rhode island

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with 
the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Senator Kohl, regarding 
language in the Committee's report to accompany S. 1427, the fiscal 
year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from 
Wisconsin for including language in the committee's report recognizing 
the importance of eelgrass habitats to marine

[[Page 27198]]

ecosystems along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, and urging the 
Department of Agriculture to make funds available for projects in Rhode 
Island to enhance these habitats. I understand that it was the 
Committee's intention to encourage USDA to make such funding available 
through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), rather than 
through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as stated 
on page 101 of Senate Report 108-107. The purpose of our colloquy today 
is to clarify that the report language should have read as follows: 
``The Committee urges the Department to give consideration to the use 
of WHIP funding for projects in Rhode Island, and similar areas, that 
will enhance these habitats.''
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island is correct. I 
join him in stating for the record that the Committee urges the 
Department of Agriculture to make funding available through the 
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program for eelgrass habitat projects in 
Rhode Island.


                             heber springs

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it has recently come to my attention that 
there is urgent need to construct a new medical facility with the 
associated water and sewer capability in Heber Springs in my home State 
of Arkansas.
  Heber Springs is located in the medically underserved rural part of 
north-central Arkansas. It is the only hospital in Cleburne County and 
surrounding areas providing treatment for local citizens.
  Mr. KOHL. Just to make sure I understand, this is a medically 
underserved area?
  Mr. PRYOR. Yes, this 34-year-old facility is the only one in this 
county and surrounding areas. Secondary facilities are approximately 
one hour in driving distance. Additionally, the population of Cleburne 
County and secondary service areas have grown more than threefold 
during the past thirty-four years.
  Mr. KOHL. What are the numbers of emergency room visits for that 
increased population?
  Mr. PRYOR. The emergency room experienced over 8,000 visits during 
2001. This volume of patients cannot be managed safely or efficiently 
in a thirty-four year old emergency room with a four patient capacity. 
Additionally, the hospital operated on 851 patients in 2001 with only 
one small preoperative room available and three beds available for 
recovery. The volume of outpatients reached 13,649 in that year. The 
current facility has been found deficient by both the Joint Commission 
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Arkansas 
Department of Health.
  I would request that this community be included in the conference 
report under the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) for the 
Community Facility Loan and Grant Program and the Water and Waste Loan 
and Grant Program for consideration of funding for a new facility with 
water and sewer assistance.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for making me and the committee aware 
of Heber Springs' situation and I will work with you to address these 
issues in conference.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank you for consideration of these requests.


                  energy photovoltaics in rural areas

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your 
attention a renewable energy program for rural communities that I 
believe should be given strong consideration for funding. There is a 
program in my state of New Jersey in Gloucester, Burlington, and 
Hunterdon Counties that will use photovoltaics to generate electricity 
in remote agriculture locations to power water supply systems for farm 
animals and ventilation systems in livestock barns.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from the State of New Jersey. This 
program sounds interesting, but tell me, are rural areas being deprived 
of adequate energy sources?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am glad the Senator asked that question. The 
economic pressure of rapid suburbanization is forcing farmers to lower 
operating costs to preserve their farming operations in New Jersey. 
Farms with livestock often need remote watering stations, ventilation 
in barns, and shade in grazing fields. Satisfying these requirements 
traditionally requires substantial capital investment and increases 
operating costs. The use of electricity from photovoltaics would offer 
the lowest cost option for farmers to apply these improvements. Energy 
Photovoltaics, Inc., based in Lawrenceville, NJ, will provide and 
monitor this technology.
  Mr. KOHL. This sounds like the type of initiative that should receive 
consideration under the Renewable Energy Program. I thank the Senator 
from New Jersey for bringing this program to my attention. As we 
proceed to conference, I will do what I can to see that this activity 
receives proper attention.


                           louisiana programs

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittee 
for the opportunity to address several issues as the Agricultural 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 is considered on the floor of 
the Senate as well as in a conference with House Agricultural 
Appropriations Subcommittee. It is my intention in this statement to 
express positions with respect to several areas of particular 
importance to me and my State of Louisiana that the chairman and 
ranking member will take during conference with the House. I would also 
like to thank both the chairman and ranking member for the number of my 
requests that have been addressed in S. Rept. 108-107.
  First, there are two instances where the House Committee report, 108-
193, included references to items that were not provided for in the 
Senate report. On page 28 of the House Report, $1.5 million was 
provided for planning and design in the establishment of a new facility 
at the ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory in Houma, Louisiana. Also, on 
page 18 of the same report, language was included that referenced the 
Pennington Biomedical Research Center (PBRC). Although, neither item is 
included in Senate Report, 108-107, I request that the Senate defer to 
the House and provide for both items in a final conference report just 
exactly as they are referenced in the House Report.
  Second, during the fiscal year 2003 appropriation process, both the 
Senate Agricultural Appropriations Committee Report, 107-223, p. 55 and 
Senate Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, H.J. 
Res. 2 or Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003, provided 
$70,000 to be used to initiate a multi-year program to conduct clinical 
epidemiologic research on diseases associated with intensive reptile 
disease research in Louisiana. Unfortunately, this funding was not 
included in H.J. Res. 2 as signed into law on February 20, 2003, P.L. 
108-7. Although I included this same request among my requests 
submitted to the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in 
fiscal year 2004, unfortunately there was no funding provided in either 
the Senate or House Bills. I am hopeful that during conference 
negotiations, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture 
Subcommittee can provide some funding for this urgent research.
  Third, I am hopeful that during conference negotiations, the Chairman 
and Ranking Member can recognize the expertise of Grambling State 
University in Louisiana, one of 117 Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCUs) which for over 100 years has been providing 
African American farmers the education and skills to produce better 
crops. Specifically, Grambling's contribution in the area of 
aquaculture research has and would continue to spur economic 
development and sustainability within impoverished communities in North 
Central Louisiana and the Louisiana Delta Region. In addition, the 
significant impact of this research would be felt among farmers and 
businesses throughout the State. Furthermore, this research would 
accentuate the intent of the White House Initiatives on HBCUs regarding 
increasing both the capacity and capability for HBCUs to engage in 
research. Grambling State University would

[[Page 27199]]

serve as the lead institution in a collaborative effort that will lend 
the expertise of institutional resources and technical support in 
assisting individuals and communities among the tri-State areas of 
Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
  Finally, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for 
maintaining the funding at the same levels as fiscal year 2003 for four 
accounts that greatly impact the Nation's 18 historically black land-
grant colleges and universities or the 1890s as they are often 
referred. Southern University of my State of Louisiana is among this 
group of very important and unique public universities. These four 
accounts include: Evans Allen--research formula funds; Extension 
formula funds; Capacity building Grants Program and Facilities Funding 
Grants. While I realize that the Subcommittee's spending cap for this 
year is significantly less than last year, I request that these four 
accounts be increased during conference negotiations with the House. 
With adequate funding the 1890 black land-grant colleges and 
universities could build and sustain new areas of specialization and, 
thus become more competitive in attracting public and private 
financing. Capacity Building is the model for eradicating historic 
inequities in State and Federal funding to the 1890 black land-grant 
colleges/universities, especially with regards to chronically under-
funded faculty capacity. In fact, a recently released GAO study, 03-
541, May 2003, entitled ``USDA's Outreach to Minority Serving 
Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition'' highlights capacity 
building and facilities funding as two key areas necessary for 
successful competitive grant awards. The GAO study finds that many 
1890s need to attract top faculty to perform research, and it is very 
difficult to do so when research facilities are underfunded. An 
increase in facilities funding is necessary to fund costs of badly 
needed facilities while not hindering the improvements today for 
research, extension, students and faculty on 1890s campuses.
  Increased Research and Extension formula funding means saving 
otherwise lost faculty positions at the Nation's historically black 
land-grant universities. Cash-strapped States are actually forcing cuts 
and substantial tuition increases on these institutions who served 
students from the lower economic scale. Formula funds constitute the 
core of 1890 land-grant programs and are critical to sustaining the 
1890s land-grant mission of teaching, research and extension and public 
service. I am hopeful that we can find a way to increase the funding 
for some if not all of these four accounts.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I recognize the importance of the above 
items to the Senator from Louisiana and will be as helpful as I can 
during conference negotiations to address these issues as she has 
requested.


                 north carolina agromedicine institute

  Mr. EDWARDS. As a partnership of three strong North Carolina 
universities, the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute is a leader in 
developing collaborative initiatives with colleagues in agencies and 
universities throughout the country. The Institute is having a 
significant impact in my State of North Carolina, across the Southeast 
region, and across the country, on the health and safety of workers and 
their families in agriculture, forestry, and commercial fishing--three 
of the four most dangerous occupations in the Nation.
  Support from the Congress over the past 3 years has provided 
essential core funding to the Institute as it has strived to initiate 
research projects to address some of the important health and safety 
issues that are found, not just in North Carolina, but also in all the 
southeastern States and across the Nation. In addition, fiscal year 
2003 funding has been used to expand the Institute's focus to address 
the important areas of food safety, agricultural disasters, and 
agroterrorism. The Institute is working with the NC State Health 
Department, Department of Agriculture and other governmental agencies 
in these efforts. This year, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations 
Committee appropriated $139,000 while the House Agriculture 
Appropriations set aside $278,000 for the Institute. It is vital that 
the Institute receive the House level if it is to maintain its cutting-
edge work.
  When the House and Senate conference committee considers the fiscal 
year 2004 agriculture appropriations measure, I strongly urge you and 
your fellow conferees to provide $278,000 for the NC Agromedicine 
Institute.
  Senator Kohl, you have been a strong supporter of the Institute and I 
greatly appreciate your efforts.
  Mr. Kohl. I appreciate your request and I assure you I and my fellow 
conferees will give your request full consideration.


                          garden state ethanol

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators Bennett 
and Kohl for their leadership on this appropriations bill for 
Agriculture and related agencies for fiscal year 2004.
  I would also like to take a moment to engage my colleagues Mr. Kohl 
and Mr. Bennett in a colloquy.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague for his kind words and would be happy 
to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BENNETT. And I the same.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that in Title 
III of this bill, a new program in renewable energy has been added to 
the bill. the Senate committee report accompanying this bill identified 
a number of worthy projects under this program.
  I hope that the conferees to this bill will consider adding to this 
list a promising project from my State. The State of New Jersey has 
entered a partnership with Garden State Ethanol, a consortium of 
farmers that wants to provide the farmers of New Jersey and surrounding 
States with an alternative market for their field corn, while 
generating a profit for its investors and producing a domestic, 
renewable transportation fuel. They plan to create an ethanol plant in 
order to provide a new opportunity for area producers to sell their 
grain, and to employ directly significant numbers of farmers and 
laborers. In addition, this project will create jobs related to the 
construction/renovation of the plant, generate an increase in wages, 
and increase the output of the regional economy.
  With a strong commitment to agriculture combined with its close 
proximity to high-value markets, New Jersey makes an excellent location 
for an ethanol production plant.
  Mr. KOHL. I share my colleague from New Jersey's interest in this 
project and also urge the conferees on this bill to include this 
project in the conference report under the Renewable Energy Program.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Kohl, in voicing 
my support for this project, and also hope that it will be added in 
conference.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for their 
interest in this project and for their outstanding leadership on this 
essential appropriations bill.


                        tree assistance program

  Mrs. CLINTON. On September 14, I was pleased to have the opportunity 
to host our second annual Farm Day, an event that I derive great 
pleasure from. While showcasing agriculture, our State's No. 1 
industry, my excitement was put in check by some visitors that stopped 
by my office before the festivities. Cherry growers from Wayne County 
had made the long trek down to Washington, not to partake in the fun of 
Farm Day, but to remind me, and the rest of our country, of the perils 
of their profession.
  Mr. KOHL. It is my understanding that these farmers suffered a 
devastating loss this spring.
  Mrs. CLINTON. That is correct. We depend on farmers for the food on 
our tables but rarely do we contemplate the vital part farmers and 
growers play in our local and State economies. On April 3, 2003, Mother 
Nature dealt our New York cherry growers an unbearable hardship. 
Seventy-five percent of our cherry orchards and 20 percent of our peach 
orchards were destroyed by an atypically severe ice storm.

[[Page 27200]]

  Today, I strongly believe that we as a country have an obligation to 
specialty crop producers. New York State growers have historically been 
self-sufficient, asking for little and receiving next to nothing in 
comparison to large staple crop producers. Ineligible for the crop 
insurance that many other farmers benefit from, fruit growers' need for 
direct assistance from the Federal Government is all the more 
imperative during times of natural disaster.
  Mr. KOHL. What assistance is available to these farmers?
  Mrs. CLINTON. As I explained in my letter to the Committee dated 
April 16, 2003, without our help in funding the Tree Assistance Program 
(TAP), most, if not all cherry growers will not be able to afford the 
costs of replanting on top of the estimated 20 percent annual income 
loss they will incur over the next 7 to 10 years while new cherry trees 
mature to regular production capacity. Wayne County farmers cannot bear 
this and neither can the economy of New York, a State that ranks second 
only to Michigan in tart cherry production. I respectfully ask that you 
recede to the House on this measure in conference.
  Mr. KOHL. I understand the concerns of the Senator from New York, and 
I assure her that I will do what I can to be helpful during our 
conference with the House.


          farmers' market electronic benefits transfer program

  Mrs. CLINTON. I would like to ask today that Senator Kohl and other 
members of the Appropriations Committee give consideration to a matter 
of great importance to me. Few would disagree that we are living in an 
increasingly complex world. It is a world dominated by technological 
innovation but still ruled by the most basic of needs. Two years ago, 
New York was chosen for a special pilot program related to the Food 
Stamp Program. Since the food stamp program changed to the debit card 
system, farmers' markets across the country have been left out of the 
food stamp program. Lacking electricity or the necessary phone lines to 
hard wire the terminals needed to process the new food stamp cards, 
farmers' markets have been forced to refuse business, while food stamp 
recipients have been denied the opportunity to patronize local fresh 
markets.
  Mr. KOHL. I understand that in previous Agriculture Appropriations 
bills, the State of New York received a grant to try to curb this 
problem. What was that funding used for, and what needs remain?
  Mrs. CLINTON. USDA grants have paid for the purchase of over 50 
electronic benefit transfer machines. Now it is up to us to make sure 
this investment proves to be a worthwhile one. Though there are already 
positive reports about the use of this new technology in New York 
farmers' markets, we have an obligation to insure that in the upcoming 
fiscal year the necessary funds are made available to facilitate the 
integration of this new equipment, in such a way that we may have an 
accurate picture of the viability of EBT nationwide. To do anything 
less is illogical and unfair to the many communities that have openly 
embraced this pilot program. I therefore request that you support the 
House language continuing the electronic benefit transfer grant program 
in conference.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator from New York bringing this to my 
attention, and appreciate the hard work she does on behalf of her 
constituents. I will keep her concerns under consideration as we work 
to complete this bill in our conference with the House.


          Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my good friend and 
colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, to bring to the attention of 
the esteemed ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee an important provision in his bill relating to the 
Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program.
  I just want to take a few minutes to emphasize the importance of this 
provision for the State of Delaware and for the entire Delmarva 
peninsula. As you know, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture 
was authorized to develop a Delmarva Conservation Corridor 
Demonstration Program in the 2002 farm bill. Unfortunately, the USDA 
has not implemented the program.
  The Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program does, 
however, complement the existing conservation provisions in the bill 
and allows the USDA to target the benefits of watershed-based 
conservation programs to farmlands that local stakeholders have 
determined to be the most ecologically and economically important.
  We must prevent the shrinking and fragmentation of undeveloped open 
space that results from increasing growth pressures. By fortifying and 
restoring green infrastructure, we can maximize the ecological and 
working lands' potential of our landscape. Creating extensive corridors 
of both natural and agricultural lands will safeguard wildlife habitat, 
contiguous headwaters, wetlands and open space. Left unprotected, our 
remaining green infrastructure is vulnerable and will be further 
reduced or fragmented.
  The Delmarva Peninsula is blessed with an abundance of important 
natural resources and productive working lands that support 
agriculture, forestry and the seafood industry. We believe that this is 
the right time to make this commitment to conservation that reaches 
across state lines and is important to a much larger region.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me say that I agree with everything 
the Senator has said about the importance of the Delmarva Conservation 
Corridor Demonstration Program.
  In addition to your comments, I would only add a request to our 
colleagues who have been working on this Agriculture appropriations 
bill that they be made aware that the 2002 Farm bill included specific 
language that authorized the Secretary to develop this program with the 
intent that it would provide a benefit not just to the three states of 
Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, but also to other programs being 
considered throughout the country. The lessons learned from work on the 
Delmarva Conservation Corridor will improve similar efforts elsewhere.
  Conferees should also be made aware that their colleagues in the 
House agree that the intent of the provision was to allow the Secretary 
of Agriculture and the States appropriate flexibility in using the 
resources of existing agricultural conservation and forestry programs. 
In supporting this program during the farm bill, it was not our intent, 
nor is it today, to require new or earmarked funding. The USDA has not 
yet implemented this program because of what I believe is a 
misunderstanding regarding the concept of the program and the 
congressional intent contained within the farm bill. This confusion 
should be resolved so that this example of effective conservation 
policy can be realized.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleagues for their interest in this program, 
and I want you to know that I understand the importance the Delmarva 
Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program has to the State of 
Delaware and the entire Delmarva Peninsula. I can assure you both that 
I will support this project in conference and do all I can to see that 
it becomes a reality.


              viticulture assistance for the state of iowa

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the State of Iowa has a blossoming 
viticulture industry, but the demand for technical assistance far 
exceeds the State's current resources. I have discussed this problem 
with the Senator from Utah and I appreciate his interest in the issue.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Iowa has explained to me that his State 
is in need of specialized assistance through funding for a viticulture 
technician to provide on-site technical assistance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. A viticulture technician would help new producers with 
the basic knowledge needed about the industry. Such assistance will 
enable growers to benefit from increased production, and in turn, 
produce more successful vineyard businesses in Iowa.
  This proposal has tremendous support from the Iowa Grape Growers 
Association, the Mississippi Valley Grape

[[Page 27201]]

Growers Association, the Western Iowa Grape Growers Association, and 
the Iowa Wine and Grape Development Commission.


             study on north carolina horticulture industry

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, the horticulture industry in North Carolina 
is a fast growing industry contributing significantly to the State's 
economy. Though local, State and Federal officials know that the 
industry is important, there has been no analysis done to quantify the 
impact of this industry on North Carolina's economy.
  Perhaps a possible remedy might be to direct the USDA Economic 
Research Service to coordinate with the North Carolina Department of 
Agriculture and NC State University to collect the economic data and do 
the statistical analysis necessary to conduct this study.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from North 
Carolina that I appreciate the suggestion particularly in light of the 
budget constraints that we face. I will be happy to look into this 
matter to see if there is a workable solution that will achieve the 
desired result.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his consideration 
on this matter.


                 national rural development partnership

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee regarding funding for the National Rural 
Development Partnership (NRDP) for federal fiscal year 2004.
  Last year, Congress included in the Farm Bill the provisions of the 
National Rural Development Partnership Act, which I sponsored along 
with the Senior Senator from North Dakota and 43 of our colleagues. The 
Farm Bill's NRDP language authorizes annual appropriations of up to $10 
million. This authorization was included because of a recognition that 
the funding arrangement for the Partnership, which has been in place 
since its establishment a dozen years ago, has failed to provide 
adequate resources for the NRDP and the state rural development 
councils (SRDCs). That funding arrangement has depended on voluntary 
contributions of discretionary funds from USDA and four other federal 
agencies, as well as matching funds from the states and others.
  The work of the NRDP and SRDCs is more important than ever. The 
current economic downturn has hit rural America hard. Drought and low 
prices have had a devastating impact on production agriculture, which 
continues to be the economic foundation of many rural communities. 
Other rural communities that depend on logging or mining have seen 
employment and economic activity diminish in those important 
industries. The nationwide decline in manufacturing has resulted in the 
closure of thousands of factories in rural areas, eliminating the sole 
or principal source of good-paying jobs in many rural communities. This 
situation has been aggravated by the fiscal challenges facing most 
State governments. As States slash budgets, the level of vital services 
upon which rural residents depend--from education and health care to 
transportation and libraries--has been greatly diminished. At this dire 
time in rural America, we must support organizations like the SRDCs 
which can help our citizens respond to the many challenges they face.
  This year's committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 
Agriculture Appropriations Bill includes language encouraging the USDA 
to continue its support of the NRDP and SRDCs by providing stable 
funding, technical support, and guidance practices as they have done 
over past years. Similar language was included in the Senate 
subcommittee's report on the fiscal year 2003 Agricultural 
Appropriations bill.
  I appreciate the support the Chairman and Ranking Member have shown 
for the NRDP and SRDCs. Besides continuing current USDA involvement, it 
is important to continue and intensify its efforts to secure support 
for the NRDP and SRDCs from other federal agencies and with rural 
responsibilities as it has done successfully in the past. This is 
consistent with the intention of Congress in the Conference Committee 
Report of the 2002 Farm Bill.
  The committee report has spoken to the importance of the Department 
continuing to support the continued development and increased 
involvement of the NRDP and SRDCs. I would also appreciate the 
Committee's continued emphasis on importance of multi-agency 
cooperation with USDA to strengthen this vital effort to spur and 
strengthen our rural economies.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague's sentiments 
on the importance of multi-agency involvement in rural development. I 
appreciate the Senator's comments and look forward to our continuing to 
work together to support this effort when this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, our subcommittee has a consistent history of 
supporting this rural development effort and promoting this kind of 
multi-disciplinary approach. That was the intent of our committee 
report and, I am sure, will continue to be an important focus of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________