[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20690-20702]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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


                           Amendment No. 1747

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe this has been cleared on the 
other side.
  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Reid and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1747.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. 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:

       (Purpose: To provide for minimum prices for milk handlers)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__.(a) Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(M) Minimum milk prices for handlers.--
       ``(i) Application of minimum price requirements.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a milk 
     handler described in clause (ii) shall be subject to all of 
     the minimum and uniform price requirements of a Federal milk 
     marketing order issued pursuant to this section applicable to 
     the county in which the plant of the handler is located, at 
     Federal order class prices, if the handler has packaged fluid 
     milk product route dispositions, or sales of packaged fluid 
     milk products to other plants, in a marketing area located in 
     a State that requires handlers to pay minimum prices for raw 
     milk purchases.
       ``(ii) Covered milk handlers.--Except as provided in clause 
     (iv), clause (i) applies to a handler of Class I milk 
     products (including a producer-handler or producer operating 
     as a handler) that--

       ``(I) operates a plant that is located within the 
     boundaries of a Federal order milk marketing area (as those 
     boundaries are in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     subparagraph);
       ``(II) has packaged fluid milk product route dispositions, 
     or sales of packaged fluid milk products to other plants, in 
     a milk marketing area located in a State that requires 
     handlers to pay minimum prices for raw milk purchases; and
       ``(III) is not otherwise obligated by a Federal milk 
     marketing order, or a regulated milk pricing plan operated by 
     a State, to pay minimum class prices for the raw milk that is 
     used for the milk dispositions or sales.

       ``(iii) Obligation to pay minimum class prices.--For the 
     purpose of clause (ii)(III), the Secretary may not consider a 
     handler of Class I milk products to be obligated by a Federal 
     milk marketing order to pay minimum class prices for raw milk 
     unless the handler operates the plant as a fully regulated 
     fluid milk distributing plant under a Federal milk marketing 
     order.
       ``(iv) Certain handlers exempted.--Clause (i) does not 
     apply to--

       ``(I) a handler (otherwise described in clause (ii)) that 
     operates a nonpool plant (as defined in section 1000.8(e) of 
     title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this subparagraph));
       ``(II) a producer-handler (otherwise described in clause 
     (ii)) for any month during which the producer-handler has 
     route dispositions, and sales to other plants, of packaged 
     fluid milk products equaling less than 3,000,000 pounds of 
     milk; or
       ``(III) a handler (otherwise described in clause (ii)) for 
     any month during which--

       ``(aa) less than 25 percent of the total quantity of fluid 
     milk products physically received at the plant of the handler 
     (excluding concentrated milk received from another plant by 
     agreement for other than Class I use) is disposed of as route 
     disposition or is transferred in the form of packaged fluid 
     milk products to other plants; or
       ``(bb) less than 25 percent in aggregate of the route 
     disposition or transfers are in a marketing area or areas 
     located in 1 or more States that require handlers to pay 
     minimum prices for raw milk purchases.
       ``(N) Exemption for certain milk handlers.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section, no handler with 
     distribution of Class I milk products in the Arizona-Las 
     Vegas marketing area (Order No. 131) shall be exempt during 
     any month from any minimum milk price requirement established 
     by the Secretary under this subsection if the total 
     distribution of Class I products during the preceding month 
     of any such handler's own farm production that exceeds 
     3,000,000 pounds.''.
       (b) Section 8c(11) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 
     U.S.C. 608c(11)), reenacted with amendments by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Exclusion of nevada from federal milk marketing 
     orders.--In the case of milk and its products, no county or 
     other political subdivision located in the State of Nevada 
     shall be within a marketing area covered by any order issued 
     under this section.''.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or 
     the amendments made by this section, a milk handler 
     (including a producer-handler or producer operating as a 
     handler) that is subject to regulation under this section or 
     an amendment made by this section shall comply with any 
     requirement under section 1000.27 of title 7, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or a successor regulation) relating to 
     responsibility of handlers for records or facilities.
       (d)(1) This section and the amendments made by this section 
     take effect on the first day of the first month beginning 
     more than 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) To accomplish the expedited implementation schedule for 
     the amendment made by subsection (a), effective on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     ensure that the pool distributing plant provisions of each 
     Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c(5)(B) of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)(B)), 
     reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
     Agreement of 1937, provides that a handler described in 
     section 8c(5)(M) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 
     reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
     Agreement of 1937 (as added by subsection (a))), will be 
     fully regulated by the order in which the distributing plant 
     of the handler is located.
       (3) Implementation of this section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall not be subject to a referendum under 
     section 8c(19) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608c(19)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1747.
  The amendment (No. 1747) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1748

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inouye, Senator 
Feinstein, and others, 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 Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Inouye, for 
     himself, Mr. Akaka, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1748.

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

 (Purpose: To limit the use of funds made available to the Animal and 
                    Plant Health Inspection Service)

       On page 101, line 10, before the period at the end insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     may be used to demolish or dismantle the Hawaii Fruit Fly 
     Production Facility in Waimanalo, Hawaii''.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I offer an amendment that would 
prohibit the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, APHIS, from 
using appropriated funds to demolish or dismantle the Hawaii Fruit Fly 
Production Facility in Waimanalo, HI.
  This amendment, which is cosponsored by my dear friends, Senator 
Akaka and Senator Finstein, is in response to a recent decision made by 
APHIS to dismantle the Hawaii Fruit Fly Production Facility in 
Waimanalo, HI and would preclude the agency from carrying out this 
decision until other alternatives have been articulated and analyzed. 
In addition, this amendment would provide the agency and the many 
stakeholders with additional time to examine the issue, to seek a more 
creative solution, and to have the Secretary recommend a plan that is 
acceptable to the agricultural representatives of the State of Hawaii, 
California, and other impacted States.
  Releases of sterile insects have played a prominent role in the 
success

[[Page 20691]]

of most pest control or eradication programs. It is in this context 
that I have two main concerns with the agency's decision. First, 
relying solely on Guatemala as a source of sterile Mediterranean fruit 
flies places the United States at risk if the supply from Guatemala 
were curtailed for any reason. In these times of terrorist activities 
and civil unrest, disruption is much more than an academic debate. I 
have been assured by other states impacted by the APHIS decision that 
they share my concern.
  Second, from a Hawaii perspective the permanent closure of the 
facility in Waimanalo does not bode well for the future of diversified 
agriculture in Hawaii. Unfortunately, Hawaii is infested with four 
fruit fly pest species--not just the Mediterranean fruit fly. Any hope 
of area wide control or eradication of these pests requires efficient 
rearing of all four species for sterile release programs. It is my 
intent to seek support for a multiple species rearing facility in 
Waimanalo to address this problem that is unique to Hawaii. While 
suppression of all four of the fruit fly species in Hawaii is of great 
benefit to our State, such activities may be among the best mechanisms 
for avoiding inadvertent fruit fly infestations in other states where 
these alien pests can survive.
  Given these concerns, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment 
that would prohibit APHIS from implementing its demolition decision and 
to provide additional time for the agency to work with all stakeholders 
in exploring and implementing a sound public policy on this issue of 
great importance to the State of Hawaii.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1748.
  The amendment (No. 1748) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1749

  Mr. DURBIN. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, 
Senator Enzi, and Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1749.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. 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:

 (Purpose: To insert provisions related to conflicts of interest among 
    members of advisory panels of the Food and Drug Administration)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___.(a) Subject to subsection (b), none of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used to--
       (1) grant a waiver of a financial conflict of interest 
     requirement pursuant to section 505(n)(4) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(n)(4)) for any 
     voting member of an advisory committee or panel of the Food 
     and Drug Administration; or
       (2) make a certification under section 208(b)(3) of title 
     18, United States Code, for any such voting member.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a waiver or 
     certification if--
       (1) not later than 15 days prior to a meeting of an 
     advisory committee or panel to which such waiver or 
     certification applies, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services discloses on the Internet website of the Food and 
     Drug Administration--
       (A) the nature of the conflict of interest at issue; and
       (B) the nature and basis of such waiver or certification 
     (other than information exempted from disclosure under 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code (popularly known 
     as the Freedom of Information Act)); or
       (2) in the case of a conflict of interest that becomes 
     known to the Secretary less than 15 days prior to a meeting 
     to which such waiver or certification applies, the Secretary 
     shall make such public disclosure as soon as possible 
     thereafter, but in no event later than the date of such 
     meeting.
       (c) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to make a new appointment to an advisory committee or 
     panel of the Food and Drug Administration unless the 
     Commissioner of Food and Drugs submits a confidential report 
     to the Inspector General of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services of the efforts made to identify qualified 
     persons for such appointment with minimal or no potential 
     conflicts of interest.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Scientific Advisory Committee system 
at the Food and Drug Administration is meant to provide the Agency with 
unbiased, independent, professional advice on the safety and efficacy 
of drugs, devices, biologics, food, and veterinary medicine.
  To protect the objectivity and the integrity of advisory committees, 
members have long been subject to a number of conflict of interest laws 
and regulations. Unfortunately, the Food and Drug Administration has 
routinely granted waivers to scientists with financial ties to the 
manufacture of the products under consideration or their competitors. 
These waivers can compromise the integrity of this important advisory 
process. Let me give one example.
  The February 2005 advisory panel considering whether painkillers, 
Celebrex, Bextra, and Vioxx, could safely be marketed to the public 
included 10 scientists who were granted conflict of interest waivers. 
Ten of the thirty-two members--that is 31 percent--consulted for or 
received research support from Pfizer, which makes Celebrex and Bextra; 
and Merck, which makes Vioxx; or Novartis, which is seeking approval 
for a similar painkiller.
  Had the votes of those 10 scientists been excluded, the panel would 
have favored withdrawing Bextra from the market and blocking the return 
of Vioxx.
  As the New York Times pointed out in a March editorial:

       Unless the FDA makes a more aggressive effort to find 
     unbiased experts or medical researchers start severing their 
     ties with the industry, a whiff of bias may taint the 
     verdicts of many advisory panels.

  I, along with two of my colleagues, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, have 
offered this amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill, a bill 
which funds the Food and Drug Administration. It will increase the 
transparency of the process. It will ensure the FDA has searched for 
experts without conflicts of interest.
  Specifically, our amendment requires the FDA to disclose any conflict 
of interest waivers on their Web site 15 days prior to the meeting of 
the advisory committee. They must detail the nature of the conflict of 
interest and the rationale for the waiver.
  The amendment also requires the FDA to send a report to the Health 
and Human Services inspector general after each new advisory committee 
is convened. The report must detail the steps the FDA took to find 
scientists who were free from conflicts.
  Finally, Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and I will request that the 
Government Accountability Office conduct an in-depth study of the 
waiver process and provide recommendations on how it can be improved.
  My amendment will increase the transparency of the waiver process and 
require the FDA to report to a third party about their efforts to 
identify scientists without conflicts. I think this will create a 
powerful incentive for the FDA to find more scientists without the 
potential for bias.
  Let me close by saying that, over the years, it has been my good 
fortune to work with this important agency, the Food and Drug 
Administration. The American people don't know how much we rely on this 
tiny agency to decide that what is sold to us in drug stores and other 
places in our daily lives must be safe and they must be effective as 
advertised. It is an arduous and important process, and they get it 
right so often, but occasionally they do not. We have to make certain 
that we try to take out of this decision process any question that 
would be raised about the integrity of the Agency or the means they are 
using to reach their conclusions. I hope this amendment moves us in 
that direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page 20692]]


  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his 
initiative on this issue and congratulate him for the final product 
that has been crafted. This could have been a very controversial and 
contentious issue, but by compromise, conversation, and consultation 
among him and the other Senators he mentioned, we now have an amendment 
that is virtually noncontroversial.
  It is important that we do not enforce the conflict-of-interest issue 
with such difficulty that ultimately the pharmaceutical companies are 
cut off from any opportunity of ever consulting with the best experts 
in the field because those experts want to also remain available to the 
FDA.
  I think the compromise that has been reached is a sound one. I 
endorse the amendment and urge all Senators to vote for it.
  I call for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the question is on agreeing 
to amendment No. 1749.
  The amendment (No. 1749) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table 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.
  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.


             Amendments Nos. 1750, 1751, and 1752, en bloc

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have three amendments which I send to 
the desk and ask for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1750, 1751, and 1752.

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


                           amendment no. 1750

       On page 93, line 9 at the end of the sentence insert the 
     following:
       ``Provided further, That the Agricultural Research Service 
     may convey all rights and title of the United States, to a 
     parcel of land comprising 19 acres, more or less, located in 
     Section 2, Township 18 North, Range 14 East in Oktibbeha 
     County, Mississippi, originally conveyed by the Board of 
     Trustees of the Institution of Higher Learning of the State 
     of Mississippi, and described in instruments recorded in Deed 
     Book 306 at pages 553-554, Deed Book 319 at page 219, and 
     Deed Book 33 at page 115, of the public land records of 
     Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, including facilities, and 
     fixed equipment, to the Mississippi State University, 
     Starkville, Mississippi, in their ``as is'' condition, when 
     vacated by the Agricultural Research Service.


                           amendment no. 1751

       At the appropriate place in the bill (page 173 after line 
     24), insert the following new paragraphs:
       ``Sec.   . (a) Hereafter, none of the funds made available 
     by this Act or any other Act may be used to publish, 
     disseminate, or distribute Agriculture Information Bulletin 
     Number 787.
       (b) Of the funds provided to the Economic Research Service, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into an agreement 
     with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     comprehensive report on the economic development and current 
     status of the sheep industry in the United States.''


                           amendment no. 1752

       On page 173, after line 24 insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . The Secretary of Agriculture may establish a 
     demonstration intermediate relending program for the 
     construction and rehabilitation of housing for the Choctaw 
     Nation: Provided, That the interest rate for direct loans 
     shall be 1 percent: Provided further, That no later than one 
     year after the establishment of this program the Secretary 
     shall provide the Committees on Appropriations with a report 
     providing information on the program structure, management, 
     and general demographic information on the loan recipients.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the first amendment is in regard to a 
study on the sheep industry in the United States by the National 
Academy of Sciences. The second authorizes a demonstration tribal 
housing program. And the third authorizes a land transfer in 
Mississippi from the Agricultural Research Service to Mississippi State 
University.
  All three of these amendments have been considered carefully on both 
sides. They have been cleared on both sides. I ask that they be 
approved en bloc by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1750, 1751, and 1752) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that the vote be reconsidered and 
that reconsideration be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may offer 
an amendment dealing with horse inspection and that no second-degree 
amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. 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.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I withdraw my previous unanimous consent 
request and I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 
1726.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                Amendment No. 1753 to Amendment No. 1726

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr. 
     Byrd, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lott, Mr. Graham, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
     DeMint, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1753 to amendment numbered 1726.

  Mr. ENSIGN. 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 the use of appropriated funds to pay the salaries 
 or expenses of personnel to inspect horses under certain authority or 
                              guidelines)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to 
     inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 603) or under the guidelines issued under 
     section 903 the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901 note; Public Law 104-127).

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleagues, Senators 
Byrd, Landrieu, Graham, Lott, Stabenow, DeMint, Feinstein, and 
Lautenberg, to submit an amendment to the 2006 Senate Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  The goal of our amendment is simple: to end the slaughter of 
America's horses for human consumption overseas.
  I graduated from Colorado State with a degree in veterinary medicine. 
I have

[[Page 20693]]

been concerned with animal welfare since my earlier days as a youth and 
pursued those interests as a practicing veterinarian.
  Our Nation's history and cultural heritage is strongly associated 
with horses. George Washington is pictured many places with horses. We 
are reminded of the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express 
in the West. The Depression era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral 
raised the morale of our country during desperate times.
  The owners who sell their horses at auction are often unaware that 
those horses may be on their way to one of the three remaining horse 
slaughterhouses in America. These slaughterhouses--two in Texas and one 
in Illinois--are owned by French and Belgium companies. They slaughter 
American horses almost exclusively for one purpose--exporting the meat 
overseas for human consumption.
  Workhorses, racehorses, and even pet horses--many young and healthy--
are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where their 
meat is considered a delicacy. The profits, along with the product, are 
shipped overseas. These horses are slaughtered in America and shipped 
to Japan, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany for human consumption.
  Last year, nearly 100,000 American horses were slaughtered for human 
consumption overseas. Sixty-five thousand of these were sent to three 
slaughterhouses in the United States, and more than 30,000 were shipped 
across our borders to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.
  Our amendment effectively stops this practice. It restricts the use 
of Federal funds for the inspection of horses being sent to 
slaughterhouses for human consumption. Without these inspections, 
required under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, horses cannot be 
slaughtered, or exported for slaughter, for human consumption overseas.
  Strong support for our amendment is reflected in the House of 
Representatives, where an identical measure was passed by a vote of 269 
to 158 this past June.
  We have several articles and editorials from around the country that 
have been written in support of our amendment. Articles have appeared 
in the Washington Times, the St. Petersburg Times, the Charleston 
Gazette, and the Louisville Courier-Journal, just to name a few. I ask 
unanimous consent to have these articles printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 15, 2005]

                            Save the Horses

       Most Americans would sooner starve than eat fillet of horse 
     with cranberry chutney, or however they do it in Europe. It 
     might then come as a surprise that 66,000 horses were 
     slaughtered for consumption in the United States last year, 
     and 20,000 more were exported abroad for the same purposes. 
     Even more so when one considers that nearly none of this 
     horse flesh ends up on American platters--and for that we are 
     thankful.
       While cattle and poultry are bred specifically for food, 
     horses are not. Many of those sold to slaughterhouses are 
     privately owned or caught in the wild by the federal Bureau 
     of Land Management, which then tries to find adoptive homes. 
     When it cannot, the horses go to the highest bidder, in this 
     case either to one of the three Belgian- or French-owned 
     plants.
       Fortunately, there is growing opposition in Congress to 
     this kind of thing. In June, the House passed by a bipartisan 
     majority an amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill 
     banning the use of federal funds in the slaughtering of 
     horses. The Senate is schedule to vote on the amendment, 
     sponsored by veterinarian Sen. John Ensign, next week. We 
     encourage senators to support this ban.
       Certain veterinary groups, rather ironically, oppose the 
     amendment. They claim that it is humane to put aging or 
     neglected horses out of their misery. But if anyone actually 
     saw how these noble beasts are slaughtered--strung up by 
     their hind legs and bled--they might think twice before 
     supporting such conduct. The only problem with attaching the 
     amendment to an appropriations bill is that it will expire 
     next year.
       So, Mr. Ensign has also introduced independent legislation 
     that would ban the slaughter of horses entirely. Some critics 
     contend an outright ban is an abuse of congressional power. 
     But Cass Sunstein, the distinguished University of Chicago 
     law professor, conclusively addressed those concerns a few 
     years ago: ``A ban on commercial slaughter of horses would be 
     plainly within congressional authority, if accompanied by 
     reasonable findings that such slaughter is often or generally 
     a way of yielding products for interstate or international 
     sale, and therefore has a substantial effect on interstate or 
     international commerce.'' Few would argue that it doesn't.
       We admit to a certain sentimentality in our appeal to ban 
     horse slaughter. The horse has always held a hallowed place 
     in our national identity, much like the bald eagle. And just 
     as no American would consider ordering up a bald eagle, if 
     only out of respect, so would none ask for a horse steak.
                                  ____


         [From the Louisville Courier-Journal, Sept. 13, 2005]

                         Horse Sense in Senate

       This week, the U.S. Senate may vote on an amendment to the 
     agriculture appropriations bill that would outlaw the 
     slaughter of horses for food. For most Kentuckians--in fact, 
     for most Americans--it's shocking that such a vote would need 
     to be taken. In this country, horses are raised to be 
     companion animals. Most folks don't know that in three 
     foreign-owned slaughterhouses within our borders, about 
     45,000 horses are killed each year.
       The meat is then shipped to Japan and several European 
     countries, where horse is served for dinner. In the 
     international market, the meat of American horses is 
     especially coveted, since most of them have been well fed and 
     have received superior care.
       This should be an easy vote for Sens. Mitch McConnell and 
     Jim Bunning. Horses are central to Kentucky's culture. Our 
     famous Bluegrass farms breed and raise them for higher 
     purposes than ending up on some dinner table overseas.
       And no horse is currently safe from that fate. Ferdinand, 
     the 1986 Kentucky Derby winner, was killed in a Japanese 
     slaughterhouse when his stud services were no longer needed. 
     This past spring, 41 wild mustangs were slaughtered for food 
     in a Texas plant after being purchased through a program 
     meant to give them new homes.
       That's why, in June, the U.S. House of Representatives 
     overwhelmingly passed legislation identical to what the 
     Senate is considering. Kentucky's own Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-
     1st District, led the effort.
       Now the Senate should do the same, with Kentuckians again 
     playing a leadership role.
                                  ____


            [From the St. Petersburg Times, Sept. 13, 2005]

                    Bring an End to Horse Slaughter

       Horse slaughter has no place in the United States. The 
     House of Representatives confirmed that earlier this year by 
     passing an amendment to the agriculture spending bill that 
     would, in essence, stop the practice. Now it is the Senate's 
     turn.
       Currently, horses that are no longer wanted are sold to 
     buyers who presumably seek them for recreation or as pets too 
     often end up in slaughterhouses or in the hands of exporters 
     who send them outside the country for slaughter. Sometimes 
     the buyers hide their true intentions and make a profit by 
     selling the horses for slaughter. Each year, nearly 100,000 
     horses are subjected to a cruel end to their lives.
       Horse meat for human consumption hasn't been sold in the 
     United States for decades and isn't even used in pet food 
     here. If a horse is near the end of its useful life, there 
     are more humane ways for an owner to get rid of it. Adoption 
     groups offer horses a peaceful retirement, and if the horses 
     need to be euthanized, it can be done painlessly and humanely 
     for a couple hundred dollars.
       The Senate vote could come up in the next few days, so 
     those opposed to horse slaughter should contact their 
     senators and tell them to support the amendment, which would 
     deny the Agriculture Department taxpayer dollars for the 
     inspection of horse meat. Without such inspections, legalized 
     horse slaughter in this country will end. And good riddance.
                                  ____


             [From the Charleston Gazette, Sept. 13, 2005]

                 Save Horses--Bill Would Stop Slaughter

       Around 90,000 American horses are slaughtered each year for 
     human consumption. Foreign-owned slaughterhouses on American 
     soil kill about 50,000 of them; the other 20,000 are sent 
     live to Mexico or Canada. Some are wild horses that still 
     wander ranges of the West; others are unwanted, disposed of 
     by their owners or unscrupulous dealers who promise they will 
     go to good homes.
       Many of these creatures undergo extreme suffering en route 
     to their final destination. Transport law allows them to go 
     for 24 hours without food, water or rest, even if they are 
     badly injured or heavily pregnant.
       West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd plans an amendment to the 
     Agriculture appropriations bill banning horse slaughter in 
     the United States. All three of the state's representatives 
     voted for a similar amendment in the House that passed, 269-
     158.
       There are alternatives to the slaughter of unwanted horses. 
     The recent auction of wild mustangs in Ronceverte resulted in 
     new homes for horses trucked in and sold for a nominal 
     amount. Many horse rescue operations work with retired 
     racehorses, many of

[[Page 20694]]

     whom have tragically ended at slaughterhouses--even big-time 
     steeds, including Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand. The rescue 
     organizations retrain them and find them new homes and 
     careers. Horses that have truly come to the end of their 
     useful or comfortable lives can be humanely euthanized, 
     rather than having to endure the pain, panic and trauma of a 
     trip to the slaughterhouse.
       The bond between horses and humans is as close as the 
     connection between dogs or cats and their owners. The 
     horsemeat industry is not a vital part of the American 
     economy. We hope the Senate will pass this humane amendment.
                                  ____



                                              City of Kaufman,

                                   Kaufman, TX, September 6, 2005.
     Re Support Congressional efforts to end horse slaughter.

       Dear Senator: As the Mayor of Kaufman, Texas, I am all too 
     well acquainted with an issue that has been getting plenty of 
     attention on Capitol Hill recently: horse slaughter.
       Kaufman is ``home'' to Dallas-Crown, one of only three 
     slaughterhouses that continue to operate in this country (the 
     other plants are in Ft. Worth, TX and DeKalb, IL). Together, 
     the plants killed more than 65,000 of our horses last year 
     for human consumption abroad. All three plants, are foreign 
     owned, and all three are out of step with American public 
     opinion. Seventy-eight percent of Texans oppose horse 
     slaughter and polls from other parts of the country reflect 
     this sentiment. Both of the Texas plants operating in 
     violation of state law which prohibits the sale of horsemeat 
     for human consumption. And Dallas-Crown is operating in 
     violation of a multitude of local laws pertaining to 
     wastemanagement, air quality and other environmental 
     concerns.
       When the District Attorneys in the two Texas jurisdictions 
     moved to prosecute under the state law, the plants filed suit 
     and the District Attorneys were prevented from proceeding. 
     Horses continued to be slaughtered while the case languished 
     in federal court. Recently, the judge ruled in the plants' 
     favor. The District Attorneys are considering an appeal.
       When the city took action against the plant for releasing 
     pollutants into the sewer system far in excess of legally 
     acceptable limits, we ended up in court and are now forced to 
     mediate on an issue that can't be mediated. Meanwhile, our 
     municipal sewer system is overburdened, but we simply cannot 
     afford to refurbish the system so that it can tolerate 
     overload from Dallas-Crown. Nor should we have to.
       Residents are also fed up with the situation. Long-
     established neighbors living adjacent to the plant cannot 
     open their windows or run their air conditioners without 
     enduring the most horrific stench. Children playing in their 
     yards do so with the noise of horses being sent to their 
     deaths in the background. Landowners have difficulty securing 
     loans to develop their property. The residents have 
     petitioned the city council to take corrective action against 
     the plant. On August 15 the Kaufman City Council voted 
     unanimously to implement termination proceedings against the 
     plant.
       But the ultimate remedy rests with the federal government, 
     which has the authority--and opportunity--to close this 
     shameful industry down. I urge you to cosponsor the American 
     Horse Slaughter Prevention Act when it is introduced by 
     Senator John Ensign, and to support the Ensign amendment to 
     the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 
     `06 that will prohibit the use of federal funds to facilitate 
     horses slaughter.
       As a community leader where we are directly impacted by the 
     horse slaughter industry, I can assure you the economic 
     development return to our community is negative. The foreign-
     owned companies profit at our expense--it is time for them to 
     go. If I can provide you with further information, please 
     don't hesitate to contact me at 972-932-2856.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Paula Bacon,
                                          Mayor of Kaufman, Texas.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Ensign-Byrd amendment also has strong 
support from some of the people most familiar with the slaughterhouses. 
Paula Bacon, the mayor of Kaufman, TX, which is home to the Dallas 
Crown Slaughterhouse, recognized the importance of ending this 
slaughter.
  She stated:

       My city is little more than a doormat for a foreign-owned 
     business that drains our resources, thwarts economic 
     development and stigmatizes our community. There is no 
     justification for spending American tax dollars to support 
     this industry.

  That is Paula Bacon, mayor of Kaufman, TX, home to the Dallas Crown 
horse slaughterhouse facility.
  Members of the local community would like to see this slaughterhouse 
closed, as well.
  Concerns have been raised about what will happen if this slaughter is 
ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner. Some horses 
will be kept longer by their original owner, others will be euthanized 
humanely by a licensed veterinarian, and still others will be cared for 
by the horse rescue community. Efforts are underway to standardize 
practices for horse rescue organizations. Guidelines for this ever-
growing sector have been developed by the animal protection community 
and embraced by sanctuaries.
  Statistics do not support claims that this legislation will result in 
more abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. In Illinois, the number of 
abuse cases actually dropped from 2002 to 2004, when the State's only 
slaughterhouse was closed due to fire. In California, there has been no 
rise in neglect cases since the State passed a ban on slaughter for 
human consumption in 1998.
  Furthermore, it is illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a 
horse, so this amendment will not lead to more orphaned horses. If a 
person attempts to turn his or her horses out, animal control agents 
can enforce humane laws. These animals still can be euthanized and 
disposed of by a veterinarian for about $225, a fraction of the cost to 
keep a horse. That cost is not too big of a burden to bear when no 
other options are available.
  Our amendment is good for horses. That is why it is supported by many 
animal protection groups. The Humane Society of the United States, the 
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Doris 
Day Animal League, the American Humane Association, and Society for 
Animal Protective Legislation--all support our legislation. We have 
also received support from much of the horse industry and veterinarians 
nationwide. In fact, congressional measures to end horse slaughter are 
supported by Veterinarians for Equine Welfare, the National 
Thoroughbred Racing Association, Churchill Downs, Incorporated, and 
dozens of owners and trainers of champion racehorses, including 
Kentucky Derby winners.
  The time to end this slaughter is now. Please join my colleagues and 
me in supporting this important amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
be recognized to speak as in morning business. We are under the 
Agriculture bill, and no one seems to be coming forward under the 
Agriculture bill, so I obviously have no objection, but I think, to be 
clear, it should be as in morning business; therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator be given the opportunity to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for his 
graciousness, and my colleague from Wisconsin as well. I appreciate 
this opportunity to speak.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 1730 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Winston Churchill said, ``when you are on a 
great horse, you have the best seat you will ever have.'' Indeed, 
throughout the ages, the horse has carried mankind across continents, 
helped forge civilizations, and has been that beloved beast of burden 
that has borne the human race on its back.
  In America, the horse was the primary source of transportation of our 
founding fathers, the vehicle of our Revolutionary soldiers, and a 
symbol of the majestic strength and character that this great country 
was based upon. Our fledgling urban centers rose with the help of the 
horse's brawn. Our American frontier expanded farther and farther west, 
with families traveling by horse-drawn wagons across

[[Page 20695]]

mountains and valleys, the plains and prairies. The American cowboy, an 
indelible image of the fierce and undying determination of the American 
spirit, was never without his trusty four-legged companion.
  But each year, 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country for 
human consumption in Europe and Asia, where horsemeat is considered a 
delicacy. Another 30,000 horses are shipped every year to Canada and 
Mexico to be slaughtered.
  These horses often suffer unnecessarily while in transit to 
slaughterhouses. Horses can be shipped for more than 24 hours without 
food, water, or rest. They can be transported with broken legs, missing 
eyes, or while heavily pregnant. The horses are kept in cramped 
conditions, in trucks with ceilings so low that they prevent the horses 
from holding their heads in a normal, upright position. The cramped 
nature of their transport often results in trampling, with some horses 
arriving at the slaughterhouses seriously injured or dead.
  Even more cruel than the suffering these animals endure while in 
transit is their often injurious end. Improper use of stunning 
equipment at the slaughterhouse can result in the animal having to 
endure repeated blows to head, meaning that horses sometime remain 
conscious throughout the slaughter process.
  The market for horsemeat is not an American market. Horsemeat is 
shipped abroad. The three slaughterhouses in the U.S. are foreign-
owned. Thus, American horses are sold to a foreign company, killed for 
consumption in a foreign market, and foreign-owned companies profit 
from the export of horse meat. Many Americans would be shocked to learn 
that our animals suffer such a fate, all in order to satisfy the tastes 
of those living in Europe and Asia. Indeed, many individuals who sell 
horses to slaughterhouses do so unwittingly. Slaughterhouses often send 
third parties, called ``killer buyers,'' to auction to buy horses.
  Senator Ensign and I have offered an amendment to stop the slaughter 
of horses for human consumption by preventing taxpayer dollars from 
being used to inspect the horses intended for slaughter. Without these 
inspections, which are paid for by the American taxpayer, it would be 
impossible for these companies to slaughter horses in the U.S., or to 
transport horses abroad for slaughter.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Ensign-Byrd amendment to end the 
slaughter of one of the most precious American symbols.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Hawaii has 
some amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, what is the pending order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bennett amendment is now pending.
  Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1729

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I have two amendments to offer. I call up 
amendment No. 1729 to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1729.

  Mr. AKAKA. 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 Federal funding of research facilities that 
                 purchase animals from Class-B dealers)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide funding to a research facility that 
     purchases animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license 
     under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.).

                           Amendment No. 1730

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1730 to H.R. 2744.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1730.

  Mr. AKAKA. 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 the humane slaughter of nonambulatory livestock)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. None of the funds made available by this Act 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, or goats, or horses, mules, or other equines 
     that are unable to stand or walk unassisted at a 
     slaughtering, packing, meat-canning, rendering, or similar 
     establishment subject to inspection at the point of 
     examination and inspection under section 3(a) of that Act (21 
     U.S.C. 603(a)).

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to offer two amendments to H.R. 
2744, the Agriculture appropriations bill for FY 2006, that will help 
protect the health of the American public. Amendment 1730, the downed 
animal amendment, would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
USDA, from utilizing funds under this act to approve downed animals for 
human consumption.
  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.
  While I commend USDA and livestock organizations for their efforts to 
address the issue of downed animals, I am still very concerned about 
diseases such as BSE, 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 is 
very simple. It would prevent downed animals from being approved for 
consumption at our dinner tables. This will allow USDA and other 
stakeholders to continue working on reducing and potentially 
eliminating the risk of BSE or any other prions from entering our food 
chain.
  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.
  Today, USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately 10 
percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my 
understanding that USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not 
believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. 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 20696]]

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 more than $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. It also requires higher standards 
for food safety and protects human health from diseases and the 
livestock industry from economic distress.


                           amendment no. 1729

  Amendment No. 1729 is based on my bill, the Pet Safety and Protection 
Act, S. 451. It will protect family pets while allowing research on 
dogs and cats to continue in an environment free from scientific fraud 
and animal abuse.
  This amendment prohibits Federal funds from being provided to a 
research facility that purchases animals from Class B dealers. Class B 
animal dealers collect dogs and cats from ``random sources'' and 
routinely violate the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act sets 
the minimum standards of care for animals and requires accurate record 
keeping on their acquisition and disposition. Dogs and cats are 
subjected to abusive handling and exposure to the elements while kept 
on the premises of Class B dealers. They are routinely denied 
sufficient food, water, and veterinary care before they are sold off to 
laboratories.
  Less than a month ago, one of the more notorious Class B dealers, 
C.C. Baird, pleaded guilty in a case before a U.S. District Judge. He 
had violated the Animal Welfare Act because he transferred the dogs and 
cats to research facilities with false acquisition records. During the 
search, approximately 125 dogs were seized by Federal agents as 
evidence of various violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
  I recently sent a letter to all my colleagues in the Senate 
requesting support in passing the Pet Safety and Protection Act. On the 
front were pictures of a hound dog, Buck, who was in terrible shape--
skinny, his ribs sticking out, pieces of his ear torn off--after being 
held by a Class B dealer.
  There are only 17 Class B dealers selling random source dogs and cats 
for research. However, there are hundreds of suppliers to these 
dealers. Random source animals are dogs and cats that may be obtained 
by fraudulent means, through ``free to good homes'' ads, false animal 
origin records, and stealing of pet dogs and cats from their owners. 
The Department of Agriculture lacks the necessary resources to track 
the interstate activities of Class B dealers to ensure that they comply 
with Federal law. USDA cannot provide an assurance that illegal 
acquired pets are not being sold by Class B dealers. This is a problem 
that is certain to grow in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina with the 
thousands of animals placed in shelters.
  From a scientific research point of view, Class B-acquired animals 
have not had standardized care nor is there any certainty of the 
history of the animals. These circumstances make them unsuitable as 
research subjects in any case, since they cannot be used as control 
cases or experimental animals. Valid scientific research relies on 
controlled experimental design and replicable results--two things 
highly questionable when using animals with unknown history and 
background.
  This simple amendment prohibits funding in this FY 2006 
appropriations bill from going to research facilities that purchase 
animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license under the Animal 
Welfare Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support these two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as near as I can tell, there is support 
for these amendments on both sides of the aisle. I ask they be 
considered en bloc by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc.
  The question is on agreeing to amendments Nos. 1729 and 1730, en 
bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1729 and 1730) were agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. AKAKA. 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.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, unless the Senator has an additional 
amendment----
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the 
ranking member, Senator Kohl, for accepting these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Storage of Nuclear Waste

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, one of the issues that has occupied this 
Chamber for some time and had a particular impact on those of us in the 
Western States is the issue of the storage of nuclear waste. The 
question of where nuclear waste should be stored has been before 
various administrations and various Congresses literally for decades.
  The original policy decision made by administrations past and 
Congresses past was that there should be a single repository for 
nuclear waste. After a study by the National Academy of Sciences and 
others, the decision was made to put that repository in Nevada, in 
Yucca Mountain. Ever since that time, construction has gone forward at 
the Yucca Mountain facility.
  All of that happened before I came to Congress. When I got here, the 
debate was going on, and we had a particular point where we had to 
vote, once again, on whether to put nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.
  At that time, as I looked at the various alternatives, I decided that 
the best scientific answer to the question of what to do with nuclear 
waste was to leave it where it was. I was assured by the scientists 
that it was safe in the dry cask storage that had been prepared for its 
transportation, and that it could be safely transported across the 
country to Yucca Mountain.
  My reaction to that was, if it is safe where it is and if it is safe 
to transport, why transport it at all? Why not leave it where it is?
  It was very clear that the Congress was not going to accept that 
position, that the President was not going to accept that position, and 
that we were going to go ahead as a matter of public policy and have a 
single repository for nuclear waste.
  So I said: If we are going to have a single repository for nuclear 
waste, the most logical place for that is Yucca Mountain. And I voted 
in favor of Yucca Mountain.
  Looking back on it, the keyword in that sentence is the word ``if.'' 
If we are going to have a single repository for nuclear waste, it 
appeared that the logical place to put it was Yucca Mountain.
  It is now clear that we are not going to have a single repository for 
nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain has been challenged on scientific 
grounds. Yucca Mountain has been challenged in the court on legal 
grounds. And as we look at the present state of our need for energy, 
Yucca Mountain will be challenged on practical grounds because it is 
very clear that we are going to need more, not less, nuclear power.
  Nuclear power is here to stay. The nuclear plants that we have are 
going to be recommissioned and relicensed, and Yucca Mountain will be 
full if we go ahead with the existing plans to send nuclear waste 
there. We will still need storage in place even if Yucca Mountain 
opens. It doesn't make sense from a practical point of view to move the 
material all across the country, store it in Yucca Mountain for the 
purpose of ending storage in place, and then have storage in place come 
back.
  Those who saw this in advance--Senator Reid and Senator Ensign--have

[[Page 20697]]

the right to tell the rest of us, ``I told you so,'' as it now becomes 
clear that scientifically, legally, and practically, Yucca Mountain is 
not going to become the single repository for nuclear waste. And we 
need to start thinking about new strategies and new places to deal with 
this issue.
  I want to make it very clear that I am not opposed to nuclear power. 
Indeed, I am a strong supporter of nuclear power. I have supported 
Senator Domenici in his efforts in crafting the Energy bill to craft 
the bill in such a way as to encourage America to build new nuclear 
powerplants. We are behind the rest of the world on this issue. Go to 
Europe and you will find the French have something like 80 percent of 
their power generated by nuclear power. The British have large amounts 
of nuclear power.
  With the price of natural gas going as high as it is, it becomes 
increasingly economically unwise for us to continue to build gas-
powered electric plants. Nuclear power is something in which we should 
get involved in a big way in the future, and the Energy bill we passed 
prior to the August recess laid the groundwork for that.
  The question is, of course, if we go in that direction, what do we do 
with the nuclear waste? If Yucca Mountain is not going to be 
available--and I am now convinced that it will not be--where should it 
be put? There is a proposal that it should be put in the State of Utah 
at an interim storage site that has just recently been licensed by the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  I put stress on the word ``interim'' because the whole idea behind 
the proposed facility in Utah, in a place called Skull Valley, was that 
it would simply be a stopover for the waste on its way to Yucca 
Mountain, and so it has been designed and it has been licensed as an 
interim storage facility.
  If it does not make sense for us to take this nuclear waste and put 
it in a permanent repository, which is what Yucca Mountain is, why does 
it make sense to put it in an interim repository that does not have the 
safeguards that are built into Yucca Mountain?
  Yucca Mountain would put the waste below ground. It would put the 
waste in vaults that have been prepared for it. The interim facility in 
Skull Valley would leave the waste above ground. It would leave the 
waste in the dry cask receptacles that were built for transportation. 
Why ship it from its present site aboveground to another site 
aboveground to say, well, this is an interim storage site until we put 
it in permanent storage?
  The reality is, if you do that, you are creating a permanent storage 
site because there will be no place to put it after it has been 
transported to the interim storage site.
  There are those who say: You just don't want it in Utah. And that is 
true, I don't want it in Utah. But there is another factor that drives 
the reason I don't want it in Utah. This particular interim storage 
site is at the portal to the Utah Test and Training Range. Even most 
people in Utah have never heard of the Utah Test and Training Range, 
and they have no idea what it is. It is the largest land range for 
bombing practice in the United States. It goes all the way back to the 
Second World War. The crew that flew the mission over Hiroshima in the 
Enola Gay trained at the Utah Test and Training Range.
  Today, it is still in use. F-16s from Hill Air Force Base fly over 
the Utah Test and Training Range and practice their bombing runs with 
live ordinance. I have flown over the Utah Test and Training Range in a 
helicopter and have been told: We have to get out of here because the 
F-16s are coming, and they are going to start bombing.
  It clearly does not make sense to have an interim storage facility 
for nuclear waste in an area where F-16s with live ordinance are going 
to be flying.
  There are those who say: The F-16s can change their flight pattern; 
they can go around this area; they don't need to pay attention to it.
  One of the things we have learned from spending time with the BRAC 
process in determining which military facilities will be retained and 
which will not is that more military facilities have been closed by 
encroachment than have been closed by BRAC--encroachment being 
development or other activities that come close to the gate of the 
military base that make it impossible for the people on the base to do 
their job, and they ultimately say: When we built this base, it was 
surrounded by open spaces. Now activity has come in, development has 
come in, encroachment has happened, and we are going to have to close 
this base.
  I do not want to see encroachment take away the last remaining large, 
land-based test and training range in the United States. We need to 
rethink this whole thing.
  So, Mr. President, I am now making it clear that my support for Yucca 
Mountain, however well intended it was at the time, in my opinion does 
no longer hold in the situation in which we find ourselves.
  I also believe the proposal that was made at the time we approved 
Yucca Mountain the last time, that of leaving the material in place 
until we can work out the economics and the technology of reprocessing 
it, is the right approach. That is what the future holds.
  Right now people say: Reprocessing it is too expensive. But we know 
from past experience that technology will find a way around that. It 
will become cheaper and cheaper the more we do it. We are already 
involved in reprocessing warheads from the former Soviet Union as we go 
through the process of reducing nuclear weapons and nuclear stockpiles 
around the world. As that reprocessing activity goes forward, we will 
learn how to do it faster, we will learn how to do it cheaper, and 
reprocessing will be available for the nuclear waste that is currently 
being developed by our nuclear power facilities.
  At that time, it would make sense for the nuclear waste that is 
stored onsite to be shipped to a reprocessing center, not to an interim 
storage facility.
  There is one other factor that needs to be stressed. At the present 
time, the contract to take the nuclear waste and ship it to the interim 
storage facility in Utah--which, by the way, has not been built; there 
is still $1 billion worth of investment that will have to go into 
that--the process by which that will go forward will be under the 
ownership of the utilities that run the nuclear plants.
  The main difference between an interim storage facility and a 
permanent storage facility in the law has to do with titles. In the 
interim storage facility, the utility that created the waste and ran 
the nuclear plant retains title to the waste. While it is being 
packaged, while it is being shipped, and while it is in interim 
storage, it is owned by the utility. Under the Yucca Mountain proposal, 
the Federal Government would take title to the waste the minute Yucca 
Mountain would open so the Federal Government would be responsible for 
packaging it, the Federal Government would be responsible for 
protecting it while transporting it, and the Federal Government would 
be responsible for the security on the site where it would be located. 
If we leave it where it is while we work on the issue of reprocessing, 
title remains with the utility that produced it, but the security that 
the utility has already built into its plant is already there. It is 
not exposed to any terrorist attack while it is moving so that utility 
does not have to bear the expense of extra security in moving waste to 
which they retain title.
  Then when we get to the point where we can move it to a reprocessing 
plant, once again the Federal Government may take title to it.
  The Federal Government can provide the security during 
transportation. The Federal Government can see that it is kept safe 
from terrorist attack and bring it to the reprocessing facility.
  One last point. One of the reasons we want to be sure the Federal 
Government is in charge of all of the reprocessing is that the end 
product after reprocessing is not only additional energy created by the 
process, but the residue that is left is weapons-grade plutonium. We do 
not want to run the risk of having weapons-grade plutonium in the hands 
of private entities. We want to be sure that the Government controls 
it.

[[Page 20698]]

  What I think we need to do--``we'' being the collective word for the 
administration and the Congress, generally--is to adopt some 
fundamental principles and then rethink the whole issue to come up with 
the appropriate details. The fundamental principles that I would 
recommend and that I embrace are, No. 1, we are in favor of nuclear 
power. We want more nuclear power in this country for all of the 
environmental reasons dealing with greenhouse gases, for all of the 
demand reasons dealing with the increased necessity for electric power, 
and for all of the legal reasons having to do with the control of the 
ownership of these facilities. So the No. 1 principle, I am in favor of 
nuclear power. No. 2, I am in favor of reprocessing. I think we should 
work toward that technical solution for the question of waste. And No. 
3, while we are in the process of building new nuclear plants and 
working toward reprocessing of the waste, we should leave the waste 
where it is. If, indeed, as I say, it is safe to transport and it is 
safe to store in an interim facility someplace else, by definition, it 
is equally safe to store it where it is. That is cheaper, that is 
equally as safe, and that sets us up for the solution of our problem. I 
believe that if we rethink the whole issue as to how we are going to 
handle it and what we are going to do, there may very well be a useful 
purpose for Yucca Mountain. We have spent, as a nation, billions of 
dollars preparing that facility. We should review the facility and what 
it offers and see how it might be used at some particular point in the 
future and see how we might retain some of the investment we have made 
there.
  I am not one who thinks we ought to fill Yucca Mountain up with dirt 
and walk away and leave it. There can be a win-win situation for all. 
Nevada can get some value out of the investment that has been made in 
Yucca Mountain if we think it through carefully. The Nation can get 
additional power without the greenhouse gas effect that comes from 
fossil fuels, and we can ultimately solve the problem of nuclear waste 
with reprocessing.
  I have discussed this in general terms with Senator Domenici, who is 
the chairman of the Energy Committee as well as the chairman of the 
energy and water subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and I 
commend him for his original thinking of moving in directions that will 
make sense for the future. However, much as the idea of a single 
repository may have made sense decades ago, it is now clear, as I say, 
that it does not make sense, and we need to move in some future 
direction. To the degree that Senator Domenici will allow me to 
participate in trying to find logical solutions under the three 
principles I have described, I will be more than happy to cooperate 
with him. To those who had the vision long ago who, as I say, have 
earned the right to say to the rest of us, ``I told you so,'' I say I 
will be happy to join with you, too, in seeing how we can think this 
thing through and get the best solution for our Nation and all of those 
who live in it.
  With that, 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.
  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.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ensign 
amendment No. 1753 be modified to be drafted as a first-degree 
amendment, provided further that the vote in relation to the Ensign 
amendment No. 1753 occur at 4:45 today with no amendment in order to 
the amendment prior to the vote. I also ask for the yeas and nays on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  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. 1726

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I believe that amendment No. 1726 is now 
the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. This is the managers' amendment that Senator Kohl and I 
introduced last Thursday. It makes some technical corrections in the 
bill regarding conservation technical assistance for DuPage County, IL. 
It also makes some technical corrections in the Rural Electrification 
Act of 1936. It has the approval of the authorizing committee, as well 
as the support of USDA, and there is no additional cost to the bill. 
Senator Kohl and I have taken the position that we will not offer any 
authorizing legislation on this bill that does not have the approval of 
the authorizing committee. And this one falls within that scope. So it 
has been cleared on both sides of the aisle, and I believe we are now 
prepared to pass it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1726) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and ask 
that that be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1763

  Mr. TALENT. 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 Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself and Mr. 
     Pryor, proposes an amendment No. 1763.

  Mr. TALENT. 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 the use of funds to close or relocate certain 
               local offices of the Farm Service Agency)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to close or relocate a county or local 
     Farm Service Agency office unless or until the Secretary of 
     Agriculture has determined the cost effectiveness and 
     enhancement of program delivery of the closure or relocation, 
     and report to the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture 
     and Appropriations.

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, this amendment, which I am offering on 
behalf of myself and Mr. Pryor, the Senator from Arkansas, is an 
attempt to address a development within the Department of Agriculture. 
The Department is proposing closing about a quarter to a third of the 
Farm Service Agency's local offices around the country, including, as 
far as we can tell, around 30 out of the 90 offices in Missouri, the 
object, according to the Department, being to modernize and consolidate 
functions and to provide better service.
  Certainly nobody is opposed to better service. But I want to 
emphasize something here. The key with regard to how we handle FSA 
offices has to be service to the agricultural community and to our 
producers. The idea is accessibility. The idea is responsiveness. The 
idea is not necessarily somebody's planning in Washington about how 
they would organize everything in the United States if they could do it 
exactly the way they wanted.
  I am a little concerned about changing our FSA offices when, from 
what I am told back in Missouri, there has

[[Page 20699]]

been little or no consultation either with local FSA people or with 
producer organizations, more particularly farmers or the affected 
communities. I don't know how we can do this in a way that emphasizes 
service, acceptability, and accountability without having to talk to 
the people whom we are trying to serve.
  The amendment basically says hold up on this until we have an 
opportunity for that kind of accessibility and that kind of 
accountability.
  Again, I am not saying--and I don't think Mr. Pryor is saying 
either--that no consolidation is possible. I imagine it is possible in 
Missouri. We certainly want to look at how we can modernize these 
offices so we can perform better service. But we have to remember that 
these are the offices our producers have to go to any time they want to 
deal with any of the Government's various programs that affect them. 
Some of them in Missouri are already driving 30, 40 minutes, or more 
than that, and if they drive and they don't have all the forms they 
need, or they left something at home, they have to go all the way home, 
get it, and turn around and come back.
  When you are proposing eliminating some of those offices when they 
are already difficult to access, in many cases, I think that is 
something we need to look at. I certainly believe we need more 
consolidation, at least in Missouri, than we have had now.
  That is all this amendment says. I appreciate very much the bill 
managers working with us. I understand they are going to be willing to 
accept the amendment. I appreciate that. I pledge to work with them in 
conference.
  This language isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all with regard to 
this issue. I think they see what Senator Pryor and I are driving at, 
and I think everybody would agree this is something we want to do with 
consultation and discussions with the affected communities--in 
particular the affected producer and producer groups. They are not 
opposed to making the Farm Service Agency work better. We all know the 
problems that have sometimes occurred. But we have potentially disaster 
relief coming down the pike, and I certainly hope so for producers who 
have been affected negatively by the hurricane, or by drought. We have 
another farm bill that is not that far away. We need to do this right, 
if we are going to do it. That is what the amendment says.
  I appreciate the support of the Senator from Utah, and certainly 
pledge to work with him and his ranking member in conference on this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I share the concern and frustration of 
the Senator from Missouri with the proposal. We have had some of that 
same concern and frustration in Utah. Charitably, I will say that the 
efforts to close these offices have been handled a little less wisely 
than might otherwise have been the case.
  I hope that between now and the conference we can learn more about 
this proposal. I think the Senator's comments about getting information 
and input from those directly affected is very wise.
  I pledge to work with all the Senators concerned on this issue 
between now and the time we get to conference. So knowing that this 
will be the vehicle whereby we can get to conference, I am willing to 
proceed now to a voice vote and urge Senators to support it. I 
understand it has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1763) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1753

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as we are approaching the hour of 4:45, 
which has been set as the time for the vote on the Ensign amendment, I 
say to my colleagues that Senator Ensign outlined the reasons for his 
amendment. I have heard others who for one reason or another have 
already been opposed to it. But so far, none of them have come to the 
floor to express that opposition.
  I make it clear to anyone who is following the proceedings that one 
of the reasons we have delayed the vote as we have and kept the 
afternoon as open as we have has been to allow those who may be opposed 
to the Ensign amendment the opportunity to present their proposals.
  We now are at 4:45. I expect the time is far gone and the vote will 
proceed. I didn't want anyone thinking we had made any effort to 
prevent anybody from presenting a different point of view than what 
Senator Ensign laid out when he proposed his amendment this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 4:45 having arrived, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was anounced--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lincoln
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Corzine
     Landrieu
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1753), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have been asked throughout the vote 
whether that is the last vote of the evening. That obviously is not my 
call. It is the responsibility of the leader to make that decision. At 
the moment, I don't know of any amendment that would require a vote. I 
would hope that our colleagues who have amendments would be aggressive 
in coming to the floor now and offering them. We could offer an 
amendment now, lay it down for a vote in the morning.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. I yield.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I have an amendment. I would like to offer it.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Kansas satisfies our request instantly. 
I am happy to yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1742

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have an amendment pending at the desk 
numbered 1742. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1742.

  Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page 20700]]

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

    (Purpose: To modify the conditions under which the Federal Crop 
  Insurance Corporation may offer crop insurance to single producers)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. Section 508(a)(4)(B) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(a)(4)(B)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or similar commodities'' after ``the commodity''.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. 
It has been cleared by both the chairman and ranking member of the 
Agriculture Committee, and I have also received word that the Risk 
Management Agency is supportive of this change.
  Very simply, the amendment amends the section of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act regarding the use of written agreements for commodities 
in counties where the crop has not yet been approved for crop insurance 
purposes.
  The problem is that 3 years of cropping history is needed in order to 
issue a written agreement for coverage. However, producers cannot get a 
history of planting because the banker won't lend the money if they 
can't get insurance coverage. Thus, it is an endless cycle.
  We have many counties where coverage exists for sunflowers, and we 
would like to use that data to expand coverage to canola. The Risk 
Management Agency has indicated that this would be an acceptable 
practice. However, the current law says that data must be used from the 
same commodity for which the policy is being issued. This amendment 
simply changes that language to allow data from agronomically similar 
crops to be used in providing written agreements.
  The amendment has been given a score of zero by the CBO, and I urge 
my colleagues to accept it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have no objection to this amendment and 
believe we should move forward on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the current 
amendment?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that we withhold from the vote, and 
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.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are now prepared to proceed to a voice 
vote on the Roberts amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1742.
  The amendment (No. 1742) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 1765

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1765.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. 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:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide notice to 
 Congress before initiating any structural change in a mission area of 
                            the Department)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. 90 days before initiating any structural change 
     in a mission area of the Department, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall provide notice of the change to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1765) was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. 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. 1766

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. Pryor, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1766.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. 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:

     (Purpose: To provide a technical correction for the community 
         eligibility for rural utilities programs in Arkansas)

       On page 154, line 10, insert ``, Cleburne County, 
     Arkansas,'' after ``Montana''.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1766) was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. 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.
  Mr. KOHL. 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. DAYTON. 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. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I speak 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. I also thank the distinguished Senator 
from Utah, in charge of the proceedings right now, for this 
opportunity.


                    RESPONSE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. President, it has been 3 weeks now since the levees failed in New 
Orleans, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, on which I am a member, is tomorrow holding its second public 
hearing since those levees failed. The title of the hearing is, ``After 
the London Attacks, What Lessons Have Been Learned To Secure U.S 
Transit Systems?''
  That is a worthy topic. I don't question that. But in the context of 
what is occurring in the United States, it is not, and should not, be 
the most pressing priority of that committee.
  On this coming Friday, we are having the second hearing of that 
committee related to Hurricane Katrina. The witnesses, very 
distinguished individuals to be sure, are a county judge from Harris 
County, Texas; mayor of Baton Rouge, LA; mayor of Brookhaven, MS; and 
the mayor of Fayetteville, AR--no one from the administration with 
responsibility for the rescue-recovery efforts in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama. No administration official is appearing, as 
last week when the hearing was held no one with any direct 
responsibility for Hurricane Katrina and the response to it by the 
Federal Government or any other level of Government was present.
  Some would say we should not disrupt the relief efforts in that 
region, and I totally agree. I do not want any of us to be involved in 
any way that is disruptive. Lord knows, those relief efforts have been 
disruptive enough and continue to be by all the goings on down there. 
But last Sunday, Coast Guard Vice Admiral Allen, now in charge of the 
relief effort, found time to appear on four of the five major TV talk 
shows. Two weeks before, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff found 
time to appear on all five of the major TV Sunday talk shows. If they 
are actually in Louisiana or its vicinity around the clock leading the 
recovery efforts, let's hook up a closed television system, 
communications system, and let them appear before our

[[Page 20701]]

committee in a public session via that communication, but to appear 
before the committee which has, under the Senate authorizing 
resolution, the authority, not subject to some subsequent decision by 
the majority leadership with concurrence by a sufficient number of 
Members of the Senate to establish a select committee, but right now, 
here and now the authority and the responsibility to this body and more 
importantly to the American people to be conducting oversight and what 
is going on there, how the now over $63 billion this body has 
appropriated, and necessarily so, with more requests to come soon, how 
that money is being expended, or not. These are vital questions that 
are relevant to decisions that are being made every day in expending 
those billions of dollars and affecting the lives of those people in 
that region of the country.
  We have the right, the responsibility to be asking questions in 
public hearings and getting answers from those who are directly 
responsible in the administration. That is long overdue, and I urge 
again the leadership of the committee and the leadership of the Senate, 
majority leadership, to make the insistence and to assure that we get 
the proper witnesses at the highest levels of the administration who 
are responsible, and that we get answers in public settings.
  Similarly, tomorrow we are informed that the Secretary of Defense, 
Donald Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard 
Myers, will be appearing before Members of the Senate to discuss the 
situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, that gathering is going 
to be in a closed setting, private, nonpublic, no press, and not the 
American people. This is a pattern that has been continued repeatedly 
over the last 3 months by the administration in not being willing to 
have its top people responsible for the war effort in Iraq and 
Afghanistan appear in a public setting before the Committee on Armed 
Services, of which I am also a Member.
  The last hearing that the Senate Armed Services Committee held 
regarding oversight in Iraq was almost 3 months ago. It was June 30 of 
this year. Since then we have had, again, private top secret classified 
briefings but nothing in a public setting where we can ask questions 
and where we and the American people can hear the answers.
  I call upon this administration and its responsible authorities, 
Cabinet Secretaries, those to whom the President has delegated 
responsibility to make these life-and-death decisions affecting our 
constituents, affecting the brave men and women who are serving in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, affecting the brave men and women who are involved in 
the rescue efforts down in Southern United States, who are making 
decisions affecting the lives of those of our constituents and our 
citizens, make those leaders available to us in public hearings 
starting now. We deserve the answers. The American people deserve the 
answers.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I send the following bill to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1733 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                        pet identification tags

  Mr. HARKIN. I understand that the House report on this appropriations 
measure includes language that directs the APHIS to adopt a particular 
standard with respect to microchip identification tags for pets, but 
that the present measure does not include this language.
  As the ranking member of the authorizing committee that has 
jurisdiction over this issue, I strongly disagree with this language 
being inserted in an appropriations report, and with a process that 
would dictate a standard for these microchips without fully considering 
alternatives. It is my understanding that pet animals with chips that 
conform to the standard included in the House report are a small 
fraction of all the pet animals in the U.S. that presently have a 
microchip identification tag implanted under their skin. These ID tags 
play a vital role in reuniting pet animals that have gone astray with 
their families.
  Further, I understand that adopting this standard as directed would 
interfere with ongoing intellectual property litigation over patented 
technology incorporated in the most widely adopted microchip standard 
in the U.S. I think it would be improper for Congress to take this 
action at this time.
  I do not advocate any action in the current legislation, other than 
to ensure that the language unfortunately included by the House is not 
included in the conference report. I would ask the subcommittee chair 
and the ranking member whether, since the Senate report is silent on 
this issue, this issue is preserved for our consideration as part of 
the conference, and whether they agree with me that this provision 
should be dropped from the conference report?
  Mr. BENNETT. I would tell the Senator that I share his concern 
regarding this provision in the House Report. The report on the Senate 
version of this legislation is silent on this matter, but this matter 
will certainly be preserved for consideration in conference.
  Mr. KOHL. I share the concerns of the Senator from Iowa and the 
observations of Chairman Bennett and look forward to working with both 
of them on this in conference.


Oceanic Institute (Hawaii) Finfish Hatchery Technology Development and 
                                Transfer

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senators from Utah 
and Wisconsin yield? I would like to discuss with them the tremendous 
potential of open ocean cage culture as a sustainable source of high 
protein seafood for the United States and the world, and the issues 
associated with advancing open ocean cage culture.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am pleased to yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. KOHL. I, too, would also like to join in on the discussion of 
this matter.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished colleagues for yielding. Along 
with the increased demand for seafood, we have also witnessed the 
decline in natural fisheries. While we have, as a Nation, made great 
advances with land-based aquaculture to address the widening gap 
between seafood demand and supply, we are beginning to see the emerging 
potential of open ocean cage culture as a way to bolster supply without 
detrimental impacts on the marine environment. With the development of 
a viable open ocean cage aquaculture industry, we will have a valuable 
tool to assist our efforts to manage wild fisheries and ensure that 
United States consumers will have access to a range of high quality, 
environmentally responsible seafood products. I am proud to say that 
producers and the marine aquaculture research community in my State of 
Hawaii are among the leaders in the development of this new industry. 
To date, growers in Hawaii have demonstrated the commercial viability 
of open ocean cage culture for Hawaiian finfish and have small scale 
ventures that supply Hawaii as well as some mainland markets.
  To move open ocean cage culture to the next level requires the 
refinement and transfer of finfish hatchery technology to the industry. 
The Oceanic Institute in Hawaii has been the leader in developing this 
technology but recently has encountered problems in scaling hatchery 
technology to a commercial level. To overcome these problems, this 
research organization has recently expressed a need to remove the 
nutritional and other constraints in

[[Page 20702]]

the raising of finfish fingerlings destined for open ocean cages. This 
will involve some redirection of funds provided by this committee for 
the Oceanic Institute of Hawaii for a comprehensive aquaculture 
development research program. Specifically, there is a need to shift 
funds from more general feed issues to the myriad problems associated 
with raising fingerlings on a commercial scale for open ocean cages. I 
support such changes in the use of funds appropriated for the Oceanic 
Institute of Hawaii and seek your concurrence.
  Mr. BENNETT. In developing a new industry, I fully understand the 
need to be flexible and recognize that all issues cannot be anticipated 
during the initial phases of a project. I fully concur with the request 
for flexibility in the use of the funds provided by this committee.
  Mr. KOHL. I concur with my colleagues from Hawaii and Utah and 
encourage the Agricultural Research Service to work closely with the 
Oceanic Institute in utilizing funds appropriated for aquaculture 
development to specifically address finfish hatchery technology 
refinement and transfer to the industry.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to describe my amendment to the 
fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations legislation. My amendment 
would extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program for 2 years. 
It is imperative that we extend this crucial program for our dairy 
farmers that expires at the end of this month.
  The MILC program provides a safety-net for farmers when the price of 
milk falls below a set price per hundredweight, or 100 pounds of milk, 
roughly 11 gallons. Dairy farmers in Pennsylvania, and across the 
country, are an integral component of our rural economy. In 
Pennsylvania alone, agriculture is our No. 1 industry with dairy being 
the largest sector composing over 40 percent of the industry. We need 
to ensure that dairy farmers, like most farmers in America, have the 
protection needed when the price they receive for their milk falls.
  During the consideration of the 2002 farm bill, I coauthored this 
program to provide payments to dairy farmers when the price of Class I 
fluid milk falls below $16.94 per hundredweight. This program applies 
to all dairy farmers in the United States, from my former home State of 
Kansas to Oregon to Georgia and all the way up to Maine.
  When the milk prices are low, as they were in 2002 and part of 2003, 
the MILC program partially supplements dairy farm income to bridge the 
gap until prices recover. When the milk prices are strong, the program 
is dormant. This was the case for most of 2004 and 2005. However, one 
payment of 3 cents per hundredweight was made in June.
  However, dairy economists forecast that the price of milk will fall 
in 2006 below the set price established in the MILC program. Thus, 
there is an urgency to extend this program to ensure that our dairy 
farmers continue to have the safety-net of the MILC program. If prices 
fall and the MILC program is not in place, our farmers will suffer 
tremendous losses.
  I urge my fellow Senators to support this amendment and America's 
dairy farmers.


                            notice of intent

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my 
intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of 
proposing to the bill, H.R. 2744, the Agriculture appropriations bill, 
the following amendment:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1756

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. Notwithstanding the proclamation by the 
     President dated September 8, 2005, or any other provision of 
     law, the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 
     40, United States Code (and the provisions of all other 
     related Acts to the extent they depend upon a determination 
     by the Secretary of Labor under section 3142 of such title, 
     whether or not the President has the authority to suspend the 
     operation of such provisions), shall apply to all contracts 
     to which such provisions would otherwise apply that are 
     entered into on or after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     to be performed in the counties affected by Hurricane Katrina 
     and described in such proclamation.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in consultation with the Democratic 
manager of the bill, I now ask unanimous consent that all first-degree 
amendments to the pending Agriculture appropriations bill be filed at 
the desk no later than 4 o'clock tomorrow, Wednesday, with the 
exception of those managers' amendments that have been cleared by both 
managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.

                          ____________________