[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20640-20643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2744, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Bennett-Kohl amendment No. 1726, to amend the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are pleased to present to the Senate 
today the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the Department of 
Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies. The bill is 
before the Senate and is open for amendment or discussion and debate. I 
am pleased to announce to the Senate that this reflects a lot of hard 
work through hearings, examining the President's budget request for 
these Departments for this next fiscal year.
  The subcommittee was very capably managed by the distinguished 
Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, who is chairman of this subcommittee. 
The bill is within the budget authority outlined by the budget 
resolution adopted by the Senate. Specifically, section 302(b) of the 
budget resolution allocates $17.348 billion to this subcommittee's 
authority for appropriations. It is within the outlay allocation of 
$18.816 billion.
  Throughout the past 7 months, the committee has reviewed suggestions 
by Senators and others who are interested in the provisions of this 
bill. The bill, as reported by the subcommittee, was approved 
unanimously and submitted to the full committee. And after review by a 
bipartisan group of Senators in that subcommittee, all of the Senators 
in the full committee approved the allocation and the appropriation of 
funds as reported in this bill.
  We hope if any Senators have any suggestions for amendments, they 
will bring them to the attention of the managers of the bill. We will 
be happy to discuss those and review them. We hope we can complete 
action on this bill at an early date. There are other bills that need 
to be considered by the Senate, so we hope we can take up these 
suggestions, and if there are amendments, we can vote on them 
expeditiously.
  We appreciate Senator Kohl, who is the ranking minority member of 
this subcommittee, for his hard work and leadership in the development 
of this bill. Their staff has worked with the staff on the majority 
side in a cooperative way. This is a truly bipartisan effort. The 
Senate appreciates that fact. I congratulate all who have been actively 
involved in the development of the legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture 
appropriations bill. I applaud the chairman, Senator Cochran of 
Mississippi, as well as Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for 
their diligence on this spending bill and for ensuring that we have 
arrived at as sound a financial package as was possible, given the 
pending budget resolution's mandate to cut funds from USDA. At a time 
of significant budgetary deficits and increasingly tight funding, I 
worked with my colleagues to maintain a secure package for our 
producers and rural communities, especially in light of a sorely 
inadequate proposed USDA budget from the administration.
  Producers and ranchers in my State of South Dakota and across the 
Nation would simply prefer a fair price for what they produce at the 
day's end. USDA programs and Federal funding are crucial for producers, 
however, when markets are challenging and prices are depressed. The 
farm bill that was hammered out in 2002 is a contract with rural 
America, with South Dakota, to ensure adequate safety nets and 
increased opportunities for rural communities. Numerous Members of 
Congress, as well as agricultural organizations concerned with the 
President's proposed budget, have pointed out that the farm bill has 
already come in at $14 billion under its original projected costs.
  At a time when producers need the contract negotiated by Congress and 
signed into law by this President, the administration proposed limiting 
the benefits promised to producers. We cannot balance the national 
deficit on the backs of our Nation's producers. I voted to restore the 
cuts that were made to the agricultural spending package, and I am 
concerned for the adjustments that will be made to the agricultural 
spending bill in light of the budget reconciliation instructions 
advocated by this administration. I am concerned for the impact these 
cuts will have on our rural communities and our producers.
  There are several initiatives, however, that I am pleased to see in 
this spending measure. I would like to touch on a few of those 
priorities. As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, 
there are a few South-Dakota-specific items that I am pleased are 
included in this measure. A few of them include funding for a 
collaborative four-State effort led by South Dakota State University. 
These funds will increase opportunities for South Dakota sheep and 
cattle producers, building a better climate for livestock feeding in 
our State. There is funding to work at South Dakota State University to 
integrate pulse crops in crop rotations for South Dakota farmers. By 
integrating pulse crops into rotations, farmers can increase profits 
and improve soil quality.
  There is some funding for the Seed Technology Center at South Dakota 
State University. Funds will be used to conduct seed technology and 
biotechnology research to benefit agricultural producers and consumers, 
enhancing profitability for producers and resulting in better food 
production.

[[Page 20641]]

  Lastly, there is funding for the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 
Department to continue animal damage control work. The funds allow the 
South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department to continue to meet the 
growing demands of controlling predatory nuisance and diseased animals. 
SDSU, a land grant university in Brookings, is significantly impacted 
by Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and animal health Federal formula funds. 
SDSU is an institution that makes enormous contributions to our 
agricultural industry through the research initiatives that it 
spearheads.
  The President's proposed cuts on their research centers would have 
greatly impacted this land grant institution's ability to function in 
an effective manner. The President's proposed budget would have cut 45 
faculty and staff at South Dakota State University, with a 25- to 50-
percent reduction in graduate students. These cuts would have resulted 
in closure of at least one SDSU research farm and at least one SDSU 
public service laboratory. I worked with my colleagues and with the 
chairman to ensure that formula funds were, in fact, reinstated at 
sufficient levels in this bill.
  I continue to hear from constituents about the viability of the 
Resource, Conservation, and Development Program, which was funded at 
only $25 million in the President's proposed fiscal year 2006 budget. 
The funding level is a substantial reduction from fiscal year 2005 
funding at $51 million which was reinstated in the fiscal year 2006 
spending package. Rural development initiatives are crucial for 
creating additional opportunities. The Resource, Conservation, and 
Development Program contributes tremendously to the economic growth in 
rural communities, and limiting spending for this program limits 
economic opportunities.
  With respect to the animal identification program, $33 million was 
devoted to this system last year via the omnibus spending bill, and 
funds were again requested by the Bush administration. Given the size 
and scale of this program, the projected costs, it is essential to 
ensure that the Department of Agriculture includes stakeholders, 
recognizing the concerns that producers have voiced for the 
implementation of this system. The USDA needs to ensure adequate 
communication with Congress in consideration of producers and ranchers. 
I continue to hear, as well, from producers and ranchers who are 
increasingly concerned with the Department's initiative to consolidate 
Farm Service Agency service centers. Our 59 offices in South Dakota are 
essential for providing face-to-face contact with producers. Not every 
producer owns a computer. Expecting our farmers and ranchers to drive 
further distances, especially considering the significant cost of fuel, 
is not reasonable.
  Implementation of our farm bill programs depends on the ability of 
our FSA offices to communicate with ranchers and farmers. The 
administration is doing a severe disservice to our agricultural 
communities with such a drastic course of action.
  Lastly, one of the key components I would like to address is the 
mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling Program signed into law by 
President Bush in this most recent farm bill. I was the primary author 
of the mandatory country-of-origin labeling law that was included in 
the 2002 farm bill. While I was disappointed to see the House include a 
1-year delay for meat and meat products for the Country-of-Origin 
Labeling Program in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations 
bill, the Senate bill that was reported favorably out of committee 
contains no such delay. This bill, in fact, contains roughly $3 million 
for program implementation, which is a modest amount compared to the 
necessary funding for other initiatives. Mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling is a program appreciated by both consumers and producers. It 
is not rocket science and, in fact, would be inexpensive to implement. 
A recent poll by Public Citizen reflects, as well, that 85 percent of 
consumers want to know where their food comes from. An additional 74 
percent of consumers want this labeling program mandated. I continue to 
hear from producers and ranchers in support of this program, and any 
type of further delay would be a severe disservice for this right-to-
know initiative for our consumers and a marketing tool for producers, 
as well as a great boost for our export markets.
  Again, I thank Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl for their 
leadership on this agricultural spending package.
  I thank Chairman Cochran, as well, for his leadership during a time 
of obviously tight budget constraints.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the kind remarks 
of the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and for his influence in 
the process of developing the appropriate levels of funding in this 
bill. We have tried very hard not only to stay within the budget 
allocation but to try to identify priorities so that we put money where 
the problems are and we deal with the realities of living on a farm, 
trying to make a living, trying to meet the needs of communities around 
the country for rural development projects. There is a wide range of 
jurisdiction that comes under the authority of this subcommittee for 
rural development, such as housing for low-income people who would 
otherwise not be able to have housing. Also, we have important 
components in the bill relating to food safety. We are confronted with 
threats to our country from terrorist groups, so this makes us worry 
about bioterrorism and being able to develop an infrastructure to 
protect ourselves against any efforts to contaminate our food supply or 
to wreak havoc in our communities with other terrorist activities that 
relate to our food supply and its sources. For that purpose, we have 
invested in research and other initiatives that will help us more 
successfully deal with these challenges to help assure the American 
public that our food supply is safe, wholesome, and nutritious.
  In that connection, too, we realize this subcommittee has the 
responsibility of funding the school feeding programs so that school 
lunch programs, school breakfast programs, and others maintain healthy 
diets for children in school throughout our country to bring to them 
nutritious and safe foods.
  We just reauthorized in the legislative Committee on Agriculture last 
year a new law that authorizes the funding of these programs. We have 
new initiatives, such as fruit and vegetable programs that help assure 
that schools are able to access and provide a wide variety of healthy 
foods for children in the public school systems of our country.
  These are very important steps, building upon a legacy by previous 
committees that have worked on these challenges and expanding the 
benefits so that more and more students are reached by these programs.
  We try to make sure the costs of these programs are controlled so 
that people are not priced out of the system. We want to make sure that 
in our public schools, there are free and reduced-price lunches 
available in our schools for those who cannot afford the full cost of 
these meals.
  I also want to point out that access to communications systems, to 
rural water and sewer systems, to modern electricity facilities that 
are available in rural areas--where providing such services is much 
more expensive per consumer than it is in urban areas--is made 
available through Federal programs that help assure access of farm 
families and others who live in rural areas of our country to these 
important quality-of-life situations.
  We have made a tremendous contribution throughout rural America in 
promoting economic development using business and industrial loans, 
trying to attract good-paying jobs to small towns and rural 
communities. Those programs are funded in this bill, too.
  I might say for the purpose of showing the commitment, in many of 
these areas we have increased the funding over previous year levels of 
funding.
  The Food and Drug Administration is an independent agency that is 
funded

[[Page 20642]]

in this bill as well. Such initiatives as medical device review to 
assure safety for the consumers, drug safety, and the pharmaceutical 
products that are supplied throughout our country have to meet 
standards imposed by the Food and Drug Administration.
  This year, we are providing an additional $5 million to the Food and 
Drug Administration for the purpose of helping ensure drug safety. The 
medical device review account is increased by $7.8 million over last 
year's level. I have mentioned our efforts in counterterrorism and food 
safety. That is also within the purview of the Food and Drug 
Administration, and the funding there is $16.6 million above last 
year's level. To help meet those challenges, we have had to make 
adjustments elsewhere in the bill to keep it within the allocation 
permitted by the Budget Committee.
  There is not a specific account in here directed to hurricane 
victims. The recent hurricane that struck the Gulf Coast States has 
caused a tremendous amount of damage throughout the Gulf of Mexico 
States--Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. I think there are more 
counties in my State of Mississippi affected by that disaster than any 
other State. The geographical area was so large, it is just horrible to 
contemplate the total amount of physical destruction of trees, of 
growing crops, of poultry facilities. Our agricultural and rural 
community has been hit hard by the effects of this hurricane. When you 
get closer to the gulf coast, of course, you see total destruction 
along the coastal areas.
  The other day when the majority leader led a delegation of 14 
Senators to Louisiana, New Orleans, across the Mississippi gulf coast 
and into Alabama, ending our tour in Mobile, it brought home to all of 
us that the entire gulf coast area has been devastated. Businesses are 
gone. Houses are gone. Churches are gone. Schools have disappeared. It 
is breathtaking and horrible to observe.
  The point I am making is that while this bill is not a disaster 
assistance bill per se, there are many provisions in this bill that 
will help these communities rebuild and recover and will help the 
people of those areas until they can get their feet back on the ground 
and back at work and in suitable housing.
  I mentioned the farmer's loan programs that exist. There are also 
funds in this bill for food stamps, for the Women, Infants and Children 
feeding program. This is for mothers, to help them care for their 
children, help to get them off to a healthy start in life. Food safety 
concerns we have mentioned. Conservation recovery, rural housing 
programs are all very important components to the recovery effort from 
Hurricane Katrina. The Department of Agriculture has stepped forward 
and is making good progress in identifying areas that need special 
help.
  Before long, the Senate will take up another supplemental 
appropriations bill targeted directly to disaster victims. We are in 
preliminary discussions already with the administration on when that 
money will be needed, when will it be considered by the Senate, when 
will the request be submitted. These are issues we are working hard to 
resolve to be sure that Federal agencies that have the responsibility 
of responding to this disaster have the funds they need to do it and do 
it right and to do it quickly.
  We have had a number of requests from Senators to consider changes in 
this bill and for opportunities to speak on the bill. We are here and 
we will be here the remainder of this day available to discuss issues 
that may be brought to the attention of the Senate. We appreciate the 
support of all Senators.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, when I was talking about the strong 
support we received in this subcommittee from staff, I wanted to 
specifically mention those staff members who have been actively 
involved in the development of this legislation, helping organize the 
hearings that were held, to review requests, to assess the needs:
  John Ziolkowski, who is the clerk of this subcommittee, formerly was 
staff director of the Senate Agriculture Committee when I was pleased 
to serve as chairman. He has been very instrumental in managing the 
work effort of this subcommittee.
  Hunter Moorhead, who has had much experience in agricultural issues 
and is a veteran of this subcommittee staff as well and was very active 
in his work is deeply appreciated. He, incidentally, is from the State 
of Mississippi, so we don't have to have a translator or anybody doing 
simultaneous translation for anyone to understand us.
  Fitz Elder, Dianne Preece, as well as Stacy McBride, an FDA fellow 
who has joined this staff team and has been helpful in developing our 
section in particular dealing with the Food and Drug Administration, 
all have been very helpful, and we appreciate their good work.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1735

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1735.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may consider the Municipality of 
     Carolina, Puerto Rico as meeting the eligibility requirements 
     for loans and grants programs in the Rural Development 
     mission area.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a provision to be added to the 
bill that deals with eligibility for USDA rural development programs.
  This is a provision which enables the municipality of Carolina, 
Puerto Rico to be eligible for USDA rural development programs. 
Eligibility for these programs is based on certain statistics such as 
population and income but on occasion some communities are declared not 
eligible because they are too close to an urban area or there is a 
small pocket of higher income population in the locality.
  There is no cost to this amendment. It merely makes the community 
eligible. They still must apply through USDA and they are subject to 
the availability of existing funds.
  The Agriculture Committee has no objection and it has been cleared on 
the Democratic side.
  Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle and we know of no objection to the amendment from any Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1735) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Department of Agriculture and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2006, H.R. 2744, as 
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $86.883 
billion in budget authority and $69.248 billion in outlays in FY 2006. 
Of these totals, $69.535 billion in budget authority and $50.456 
billion in outlays are for mandatory programs in FY 2006.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in FY 2006 of 
$17.348 billion. This amount is $430 million more than the President's 
request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate, $518 
million more than

[[Page 20643]]

the House-passed bill, and $905 million less than FY 2005 enacted 
levels.
  I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous 
consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


  H.R. 2744, 2006 AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
       APPROPRIATIONS--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal Year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          Purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority.....................     17,348     69,535     86,883
  Outlays..............................     18,792     50,456     69,248
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................     17,348     69,535     86,883
  Outlays..............................     18,816     50,456     69,272
2005 Enacted:
  Budget authority.....................     18,253     71,954     90,207
  Outlays..............................     18,649     49,563     68,212
President's request:
  Budget authority.....................     16,918     69,535     86,453
  Outlays..............................     18,652     50,456     69,108
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................     16,830     69,535     86,365
  Outlays..............................     18,519     50,456     68,975
 
   SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................          0          0          0
  Outlays..............................        -24          0        -24
2005 Enacted:
  Budget authority.....................       -905     -2,419     -3,324
  Outlays..............................        143        893      1,036
President's request:
  Budget authority.....................        430          0        430
  Outlays..............................        140          0        140
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................        518          0        518
  Outlays..............................        273          0        273
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to the rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  

                          ____________________