[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20908-20918]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2744, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Utah.


             Nomination Of John Roberts To Be Chief Justice

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, we are on the Agriculture bill, but the 
morning has been taken up with discussion of Judge Roberts. I think 
that is appropriate given the decision of the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to support

[[Page 20909]]

Judge Roberts and to announce that here this morning. That was perhaps 
unexpected by some of the commentators and, therefore, deserved a 
little time.
  I will take the opportunity, having listened to the junior Senator 
from Massachusetts, to respond to some of the things he said, not with 
the understanding that it is going to change anything anywhere but for 
the satisfaction of getting a few things off my chest.
  The Senator complained bitterly, as he and others have done with 
respect to other nominees, that the memos given to the Solicitor 
General are not being made public. He did not tell us that every 
Solicitor General--regardless of party, regardless of administration--
who is currently living has agreed with Judge Roberts, with Miguel 
Estrada, with others who worked in the Office of the Solicitor General, 
that those memos should, in fact, not be made public.
  They are, in fact, covered by the attorney-client privilege. Some 
say, ``Well, the American people are the client, not the Solicitor 
General.'' The Solicitor General is the attorney for the American 
people and has a right to attorney-client privilege within his own 
staff, as any attorney has for material within that attorney's own 
office, as if they are representing a private client.
  This keeps coming up. It keeps being repeated in the hope that it 
catches on. We need to always remember that every single Solicitor 
General who is living--regardless of their party--says that is the bad 
thing to do. That is the wrong interpretation of the law. The Senator 
from Massachusetts did not point that out. I think it needs to be 
pointed out.
  He made a reference to the bureaucrats who were involved here who, as 
he said, have not taken an oath to defend the Constitution as we 
Senators have. I have been a bureaucrat. I have taken an oath as a 
bureaucrat to defend the Constitution. Those who serve the United 
States in these positions are sworn in with the same oath Senators 
take. It should be made clear those people who took that position and 
were in that position were, in fact, under oath to defend the 
Constitution. It demeans them to suggest their actions were any less 
patriotic or anxious to protect the law than actions of Senators.
  I will conclude by quoting from an editorial that appeared in the Los 
Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times is not known as a paper supportive 
of Republican positions. Indeed, it is often thought of as being a 
companion publication with the New York Times. But the Los Angeles 
Times says:

       It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in 
     Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not 
     vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief 
     justice of the United States.
       As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is 
     an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the 
     mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad 
     bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate 
     vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing 
     more than self-defeating obstructionists. . . .
       Even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game, 
     voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee 
     hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage [on the upcoming 
     second nomination].
       If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably 
     conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice 
     palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone 
     who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be 
     harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over 
     Roberts.

  I am not sure that will change anything, but it makes me feel a 
little better having said it, after listening to the presentations we 
have heard over the last hour. I congratulate my friend, Senator Leahy 
from Vermont, for his courage in standing up to internal pressures and 
his announcement that he will, following the advice of the Los Angeles 
Times and others who have examined this, in fact vote to confirm Judge 
Roberts. This guarantees that we will have a bipartisan vote out of 
committee, as we should, and that we will have strong bipartisan 
support here on the floor, as we should.


                           Amendment No. 1783

  Returning to the Agriculture appropriations bill, I send an amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1783.

  Mr. BENNETT. 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:

       On page 173, at the end of the page, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 7__. (a) Notwithstanding subtitles B and C of the 
     Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et 
     seq.), during fiscal year 2006, the National Dairy Promotion 
     and Research Board may obligate and expend funds for any 
     activity to improve the environment and public health.
       ``(b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall review the impact 
     of any expenditures under subsection (a) and include the 
     review in the 2007 report of the Secretary to Congress on the 
     dairy promotion program established under subtitle B of the 
     Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et 
     seq.).''.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, we need a little background on this 
amendment. It may be controversial. I understand there are some 
Senators who have opposed it and will be coming to the floor.
  It would allow the producers on the National Dairy Promotion and 
Research Board to vote to fund or not fund the dairy air emission 
research required under the Environmental Protection Agency's Air 
Quality Compliance Agreement. This sounds fairly technical. In fact, 
the money that is available to the board has always been used for 
particular purposes, and most dairy producers want to make sure that it 
stays restricted to those purposes. But something has come up that 
requires research. It has come not from the Department of Agriculture 
but from the Environmental Protection Agency in a new agreement that 
affects dairy farmers. And in order to defend themselves against the 
position taken by the EPA, they need research. They need it now, and 
they need it badly.
  This amendment would allow a one-time use of dairy promotion and 
research funds to fund the research. Most dairy farmers are in favor of 
it. Dairy is the only program that does not have an option for funding 
its own research. The research will be conducted by Purdue University, 
according to protocols approved by the EPA. This is not in opposition 
to EPA procedures. The actual research will be performed by land grant 
universities in the States identified by the U.S. Dairy Environmental 
Task Force.
  If we assume approval by the board, which would happen if my 
amendment were adopted, the funds will flow through an oversight 
organization, again approved by the EPA. The Agriculture Air Research 
Council, Inc., AARC, will contract with Purdue which will, in turn, 
contract with the universities in the States where the sites are 
selected. Dairy funds only will be used to fund the dairy research. 
AARC's board will include two members from the dairy industry and will 
monitor and audit the progress of the research and how the funds are 
spent.
  The ultimate goal of all of this research will be to develop air 
emissions data that can be used in a process model that will allow any 
dairy farmer in the United States to input his dairy's operation 
information and find out what his emissions are. The information 
generated by this research, therefore, will benefit all dairy 
producers.
  The reason is because the EPA has laid down rules with respect to 
emissions from dairy farmers. Most farmers have no clue as to how many 
emissions their farm is producing. The EPA has some fairly draconian 
restrictions to put on dairy farms, if the emissions go above a certain 
level. So how is a farmer to know whether he is in compliance, if there 
is no research on how the emissions can be measured? That is the reason 
we want the research done, and that is the reason farmers will benefit.
  I believe Congress never intended the environmental statutes 
regarding emissions to apply to agriculture.

[[Page 20910]]

When we talk about emissions, we are talking about smokestacks and 
automobiles and things that have been created by human beings. Now the 
EPA has said, no, we must monitor and, where necessary, control the 
emissions that come from cows. Cows have been generating emissions for 
a long time, perhaps even before human beings came along. So let's look 
at it, but let's not have a rule that arbitrarily disadvantages the 
dairy farmers without giving them an opportunity to know what is going 
on. That is what is behind this. In order to deal with the EPA 
regulations, the farmers need to know what is happening with respect to 
emissions. My amendment would fund a one-time study to give them the 
information they need. I believe without statutory changes, the courts 
will continue to rule that the environmental laws do, in fact, apply to 
dairy farms, and that is an issue for the authorizing committee. It is 
not something we should deal with on the Agriculture bill. Barring 
changes to the laws, I believe the collection of these data and the 
development of an emissions model will provide more certainty to 
producers.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Those who are opposed 
have been notified. I understand there are conflicts on both sides of 
the aisle at this particular moment. I am not sure how many Senators 
will be able to come down. We are open for business. We are ready for 
amendments. We are anxious to proceed. I hope my colleagues will 
accommodate us.
  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. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, as certainly the Senate knows, we are 
considering the Senate appropriations bill. There is an amendment that 
the chairman has brought at the request of the national dairy industry 
that is of great concern to me. As a result of that, I stand today in 
opposition to legislation that would seek to divert funds from the 
National Dairy Promotion Program to be used as a one-time-only source 
to fund EPA's dairy air quality studies.
  While I am wholeheartedly in support of the need for research money 
to carry out air quality studies, dipping into a program that all 
producers, large and small, are required to pay into to promote their 
products does not seem to meet the test of where we want to now 
reallocate this resource.
  The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 was established to 
strengthen the dairy industry's position in the marketplace and to 
maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and use for fluid milk 
and dairy products. The act does provide for research dollars to be 
spent but only on research projects related to the advertisement and 
promotion of the sale and the consumption of dairy products. So should 
this act leave the door open as a slush fund available any time a 
select group needs quick money for a proposed unrelated intent of the 
law? I would hope not, I would think not, and I am afraid the amendment 
takes us in that direction.
  On September 9, 2005, I and the entire Idaho congressional delegation 
sent a letter on this issue to Secretary Johanns. I ask unanimous 
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Idaho Congressional Delegations,

                                                September 9, 2005.
     Hon. Mike Johanns,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Independence 
         Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Johanns: We write to express opposition to a 
     proposal to divert funds from the National Dairy Promotion 
     Program to fund the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
     dairy air quality studies.
       We understand that a proposal has been put forward to 
     provide for a ``one time'' use of National Dairy Promotion 
     Program funds for dairy air quality studies. We support 
     necessary environmental research. However, we share the 
     concern of Idaho dairy producers that this proposal would 
     provide a misdirection of funds that are intended, according 
     to the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983, to be used 
     for dairy promotion and related research and education. In 
     authorizing the program, Congress clearly stated that the 
     assessments were to be used for ``carrying out a coordinated 
     program of promotion designed to strengthen the dairy 
     industry's position in the marketplace and to maintain and 
     expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for fluid milk 
     and dairy products produced in the United States.''
       The Act and the Dairy Promotion and Research Order, which 
     implements the program, also defines research to be provided 
     through the fund as ``studies testing the effectiveness of 
     market development and promotion efforts, studies relating to 
     the nutritional value of milk and dairy products, and other 
     related efforts to expand demand for dairy products. 
     ``Therefore, it is clear that the fund is meant to be used 
     for research related to the promotion of dairy products and 
     not for other purposes. If implemented, we are concerned with 
     the precedent the proposal would set toward possible future 
     diversion of these important promotion funds.
       The dairy industry, the Administration, Congress, and 
     interested parties must work to find the best ways to fund 
     dairy environmental research that do not jeopardize promotion 
     efforts. Last year, dairy producers in Idaho voted to assess 
     themselves an extra $0.005/cwt. to fund environmental 
     research. This is raising approximately $500,000 per year, 
     enabling the establishment of a broad based research 
     coordination team that includes the State and Regional EPA 
     officials. This effort serves as an example of how the 
     industry is working to enable research, while not 
     compromising promotion.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look 
     forward to continuing to work with you to ensure the 
     continued success of U.S. agriculture.
           Sincerely,
     Mike Crapo,
       United States Senator.
     Mike Simpson,
       Member of Congress.
     Larry E. Craig,
       United States Senator.
     C.L. ``Butch'' Otter,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, Idaho recently became the fourth largest 
dairy producer in the Nation, and coupled with that new status are our 
inherent growing pains. Over the past 15 years, Idaho's expansion in 
the dairy industry has been swift. So has the growth of the State's 
population. The two have come in conflict with each other over the need 
for Idaho's dairy industry to be good players in the environmental 
arena. That is a critical issue, and they have, in most instances, been 
successful in working out their problems.
  Even with the increased pressure of urban encroachment and stringent 
environmental regulations--and our State has not turned its back on 
this issue--producers in my State continue to surprise me in their 
work, in their innovation, and the progressive thinking as it relates 
to resolving the environmental problems that I suggested are inherent 
with large concentrated herd and dairy development that is on going.
  Idaho's industry realized a few years ago that it was vital they work 
collectively to support research to find new technologies and methods 
to mitigate the impact of the operations on the environment. So in 
2004, Idaho dairy producers voted to assess themselves an extra half 
cent per hundredweight to fund environmental research. In other words, 
they didn't ask the country to do it, they didn't ask the Nation to do 
it, they did it themselves. This initiative raised about a half a 
million dollars per year, enabling the establishment of a broad-based 
research coordination team that includes Idaho and regional EPA 
officers.
  This effort serves as an example of how the industry ought to be 
working to solve critical research problems rather than asking us now 
to dip into a fund that was dedicated to advertisement, promotion, and 
product development.
  I am aware of EPA's work on the livestock ``air consent agreement'' 
to provide limited immunity from frivolous environmental lawsuits to 
producers who voluntarily allow EPA to conduct their quality research 
on their operations. I know that those who support this onetime dollar-
dipping have good intentions, and I support all of their intentions 
fully. I have been working with them for a good number

[[Page 20911]]

of months on other ways to shape Federal policy on air quality issues. 
However, asking Congress to allow a onetime-only access to the pool of 
money never intended for that purpose defies the integrity of the dairy 
promotion program that has worked so very effectively for now 22 years.
  Supporters of this proposal say it would only cost around $5 to $8 
million, but if it is that small amount, then if you look at the 
assessment that Idaho did on themselves, you would suggest that more 
and more could be raised if other States were to do as Idaho has done. 
The program assesses all producers to promote the products that these 
producers all provide to the consumer. The money from the promotion 
program that some, not all, in the industry now seek would only benefit 
a specific group of producers--about 1200--for a purpose completely 
unrelated to the intent of the program. Why should we allow a precedent 
to be set that robs Peter and the rest of his family to pay Paul? Never 
mind that this has never been done in the program's history.
  Mr. President, again, I would like to express my support for the 
critical need for Federal investment in air quality and other 
environmental research programs for the dairy industry, but we should 
not open the gate to a flood that might never cease from a program that 
is intended for an entirely different purpose. With that, I will have 
to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I listened to my friend from Idaho with 
great interest and great sympathy, and if, indeed, we could get all the 
other dairy producers to follow Idaho's example and put an assessment 
on themselves in order to come up with this money, I would agree with 
him this amendment is not necessary. Unfortunately, I believe there is 
an urgency here. The research needs to be done as quickly as possible, 
and this seems to be the logical place to which we should go.
  I will say to the Senator from Idaho and to my other colleagues the 
fundamental problem here is not the research. The fundamental problem 
in my view is the absurdity of the EPA position with respect to the 
underlying question. That, as I said earlier, is not a matter for the 
appropriations subcommittee to deal with. It is a matter for the 
authorizing committee. But I will pledge to my friend from Idaho that 
to the degree we can have some influence on the EPA's position in 
conference, I will do everything I can to try to get a little common 
sense into this regulatory pattern.
  With that, Madam President, I call for a voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1783) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, prior to the call of the roll, I wish to 
thank the chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee for 
his work on this issue and his cooperation. Certainly, this industry, 
as it is important to my State, is important to his State. We work very 
cooperatively together. We have a lot of commonness across State lines 
as it relates to the dairy industry, and we share a great deal of work 
and research. I appreciate the urgency of the need as he has expressed 
it, but I felt it was extremely important that Idaho's position be 
heard and understood by the rest of the States because this could be 
done by the industry itself from another resource, not unlike how Idaho 
has approached it. And I hope that other States would recognize the 
need to resolve this issue, and I certainly agree with Senator Bennett 
that the authorizing committee has a responsibility here and EPA needs 
to get their act together on this issue.
  I yield the floor, noting the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, is is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Snowe, and Ms. Milkulski pertaining to the 
submission of S. Res. 246 are located in today's Record under 
``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. First of all, I rise 
to encourage my colleagues to vote for the appropriations bill that is 
before us. It is the appropriations bill to fund The Department of 
Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. I would like to thank 
the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. 
Bennett, as well as the ranking member, for the excellent bill that 
they have put together, and therefore it warrants our support because 
it does fund the agricultural needs of our communities, and also funds 
the Food and Drug Administration.
  Mr. President, Maryland is an agricultural State. It might surprise 
people because usually we are thought of as the home of high-tech 
research, Johns Hopkins University, the National Institutes of Health, 
but we are agricultural in soybeans and poultry. Also, we are the proud 
home of the Food and Drug Administration. We are so proud of the fact 
that the FDA is in Maryland and that the agency is charged with the 
mission of food safety and also with the safety of our drugs and our 
medical devices.
  One might ask why is FDA in Agriculture appropriations. Well, because 
its original mission was food safety. But now it has expanded to the 
mission of ensuring the safety of our drugs and also of our medical 
devices.
  It is wonderful to have them in the State, these competent people who 
work very hard putting America first, putting the safety of our people 
first, and also ensuring that drugs and medical devices move to areas 
of clinical practice.
  But I am telling you I am really worried about what is going on at 
FDA currently. FDA has always been the gold standard in maintaining 
drug safety and drug efficacy. Yet today this agency is being 
politicized and degraded. The current administration has shown a 
persistent pattern of bringing incompetent leaders into critical 
positions. We have seen it at FEMA. We have seen it at other agencies. 
And now it is true at FDA. I see appointments being made on the basis 
of ideology instead of competency. I have seen people who have worked 
and devoted their lives to FDA resigning because they saw science being 
politicized. I am worried about this.
  Now, I voted against the current FDA Director, not because he is not 
a pleasant man but because there were so many problems under his watch. 
And they are not getting better. Let's take the situation that occurred 
in the consideration of something called plan B. Regardless of how you 
feel about whether plan B emergency contraception should be available 
over the counter, I think we would all agree that a decision should be 
made. I understand it is controversial from a cultural standpoint, but 
the question is was it controversial from a scientific standpoint? 
Well, delay, delay, delay, delay. Even the head of the FDA recently 
promised Senators Clinton and Murray that a decision would be made. 
Guess what happened? What happened was after the scientists made their 
decision, the Director delayed it because he said: How can we prevent 
teenagers from getting it? Well, Madam President, you are a mom. You 
know if we can keep alcohol and cigarettes out of the hands of 
teenagers, surely the Food and Drug Administration would know how to 
handle this issue of contraceptives with teenagers. Put it behind the

[[Page 20912]]

counter. Dr. Susan Wood, the Director of the FDA Office of Women's 
Health, resigned in protest. Dr. Wood is a distinguished scientist. She 
is a competent policymaker. She headed up the Office of Women's Health 
that the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and I worked 
to establish, to be sure that as drugs and clinical devices went 
through the evaluation, special needs of women would be taken into 
consideration and also children--another aspect led by our colleague 
from Ohio, Senator DeWine.
  So this is what Wood's job was. Did she quit because of pay? Did she 
quit because she got some big job with the pharmaceutical industry? Why 
did she quit? She quit because, she said, ``after spending the last 15 
years to ensure that science forms policy decisions, I can no longer 
serve when scientific and clinical evidence are being overruled by the 
leadership.''
  Well, she quit. So what happened? Guess who they announced would 
serve as the acting director of the office last week? They announced a 
male, a guy, with a background in veterinary medicine. What a 
dismissive attitude of the Office of Women's Health.
  Now, I am not saying a man could not handle that job. He probably 
would have to work twice as hard to prove himself. But nevertheless, an 
individual with a background in veterinary medicine in charge of the 
Office of Women's Health? I admire the veterinarian community. They 
play a very important role in our community. They are respected. They 
are admired. They have sophisticated training. But I do not believe, as 
we are looking at the impact of a drug on pregnancy, or of 
postmenopausal women that someone with a background in veterinary 
medicine should be in charge.
  Guess what. Advocates and scientists pounded the table, and they put 
someone else in charge. And the FDA doesn't even have the guts to stand 
up for the immediate appointment it made. It backed off, saying: Oh, we 
never announced his appointment. However a lot of people have that e-
mail. I do not know the qualifications of the new acting director, but 
we are not heading in a good direction.
  I want FDA to be the gold standard on safety and efficacy. There are 
many countries around the world that are poor. They rely on what is 
approved by FDA because they could never afford to have an FDA. Doctors 
in clinical practice rely on the FDA to tell them what is a good and 
safe drug, or what is a good and safe medical device, or an effective 
device. This is phenomenal. I had the benefit of this myself. I wore a 
heart monitor, invented in the United States of America, that could 
tell my doctor whether the drugs they were giving me controlled a 
condition of arrhythmia that I have. It was wonderful to know it had 
been approved by FDA, that it could tell me if what I was doing was 
safe, and could give advice to my physician on how best to treat me. 
This is what we want the FDA to be able to do.
  We have a lot of problems. Look what is happening. We know what 
happened to Vioxx, out there prematurely, or with data withheld. We 
have all of these questions.
  If you want to worry about teenagers, let's worry about antidepres-
sants. I worry they can get antidepressants faster than they can get 
plan B. That is up to parents and others to control. But these antide-
pressants have had a very negative and dangerous effect on some 
teenagers. Where was FDA?
  Now we have these implantable defibrillators that can go into your 
body, wonderful devices that can jump-start a heart. But guess what. 
They are found to have short circuits. The manufacturer knew about it, 
FDA knew about it, and they took no action on this. What is happening 
to our FDA?
  I have fought for the right resources, I fought for the right 
legislative framework for FDA, and I am going to fight for the right 
leadership.
  I wish Dr. Crawford would, No. 1, take charge of his agency. I am not 
calling for his resignation today, though he has to think about what he 
is doing over there. He cannot continue to politicize this agency. I am 
saying to him now that if he continues to politicize it, we will have 
to look at further action. I believe he is a decent person, but either 
he is getting direction from somewhere else or he has lost direction. 
This is meant to be a scientific agency, standing sentry over the 
safety of our food supply, doing the necessary evaluations as to 
whether a drug should come into clinical practice, and making decisions 
about whether a medical device can be safe and reliable and be the tool 
it was supposed to be, such as the one I had the benefit from.
  So I say let's support the appropriations, let's make sure they have 
the right resources, but I sure in heck want them to have the right 
leadership so we can come to the right conclusions, and people all over 
the world--doctors, clinicians, and the American people can rely on 
FDA. I want to rely on FDA for science and not politics.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from New Mexico.


                       nomination of john roberts

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to 
support the nomination of John G. Roberts to be the next Chief Justice 
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  He has the experience, judicial temperament, and qualifications 
necessary to be Chief Justice, and his testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee has given me reason to believe he is not an 
ideologue and that he will make decisions based on sound legal 
reasoning that is within the mainstream of judicial thought in this 
country. I do not believe that he has an agenda to reverse our Nation's 
historic commitment to civil rights, and I take him at his word when he 
says that he will take each case on its facts and apply the law 
regardless of his personal views. It is for these reasons that I intend 
to vote in favor of Judge Roberts' nomination.
  Many people have raised legitimate concerns about views that Judge 
Roberts expressed in the past. As a 26-year-old staff attorney in the 
Reagan White House Counsel's Office, Roberts wrote a series of memos 
that raised concerns about his commitment to civil rights. At his 
confirmation hearing he said that he no longer held certain views and 
it was important to distinguish between his personal views and those of 
an advocate seeking to uphold the policies of his client.
  Due to the limitations the Senate faced in obtaining documents, in 
making my decision I had to primarily rely on Judge Roberts' testimony 
before the Judiciary Committee. The assurances he provided in his 
testimony give me what I believe is a reasonable expectation regarding 
how he will approach cases if placed on the Court. I would like to take 
a moment to briefly discuss some of these expectations that I believe 
are reasonably based on what he said at that set of hearings.
  First, Judge Roberts repeatedly stressed that he respects the rule of 
law and recognizes the importance of considering stare decisis in the 
decision making process. I agree that looking to settled precedent 
should always be the starting point in this process. It is essential 
that the decisions of the Supreme Court provide reliable guidance to 
the American people, Congress, and the executive branch, and I believe 
that the whimsical reinterpretation of settled law is not in the best 
interest of our Nation. Based on the answers that Judge Roberts gave, I 
believe it unlikely that Judge Roberts will chart a new right-wing 
course for the Court based on his own personal views. His answers 
indicate that he will apply the law in a fairminded way and that he 
will afford longstanding precedent adequate deference.
  Second, when asked about whether the Constitution contains a right to 
privacy, which provides the legal basis for a woman's right to choose 
and the use of birth control, Judge Roberts made clear that he believed 
that it did. He stated clearly that the right to privacy was protected 
by the ``liberty'' due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth 
amendments. More importantly, Judge Roberts asserted that the right to 
privacy conferred under the Constitution was a substantive and not 
merely a procedural right. This view is in stark contrast to that of 
Justice

[[Page 20913]]

Scalia, who has argued for a strict constructionist interpretation of 
the Constitution and believes the right to privacy is an artificial 
construct that lacks any foundation in the Constitution.
  Third, Judge Roberts also distinguished his views from those who see 
Constitution as a static document and only recognize recourse to the 
``original'' intent when interpreting it. I believe strongly that the 
Constitution was intended to be a living document, and that we must 
have a constitution that is able to address the challenges and 
adversities that we face as a modern society. When our country was 
founded we were living in very different times, and it is important 
that our Constitution reflect the new world we are living in. In his 
testimony, Roberts noted that although it was impermissible to 
contradict the plain text of the Constitution, where the Constitution 
uses general terms, such as ``liberty'' or ``equal protection,'' it is 
acceptable to interpret the text in light of today's notions of liberty 
and equal justice, not just those concepts as they were contemplated in 
1787.
  Fourth, with regard to recent Supreme Court decisions that have 
restricted the ability of Congress to enact certain laws pursuant to 
the commerce clause, Roberts' answers indicated a willingness to 
interpret these cases in the context of the overwhelming jurisprudence 
supporting Congressional authority in this area. Further restrictions 
on the power of Congress to legislate under the commerce clause could 
have profound implications concerning the ability of Congress to pass 
laws with respect to the environment, civil rights, and many of the 
basic advancements we made during the Warren court.
  In addition, Judge Roberts also specifically rejected the tenets of 
the Supreme Courts' 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which 
drastically curtailed the ability of Congress to pass critical workers' 
rights legislation, such as wage and child labor laws. Of course this 
decision has since been overruled, but some jurists nominated by 
President Bush, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, have advocated that the 
decision was correctly decided.
  There is one other issue that I would like to discuss. Some of the 
most challenging issues that the Supreme Court will likely face over 
the next decade will involve how we balance civil liberties with the 
need to confront terrorism. The President has asserted tremendous 
authority in this area, including the right to indefinitely detain a 
U.S. citizen that he unilaterally deems an ``enemy combatant.'' The 
Court will have to decide issues involving the detention of suspected 
terrorists, due process rights, constraints regarding the use of 
torture, and many other questions that will define our commitment to 
longstanding principles of civil rights and civil liberties. During the 
hearings, Judge Roberts rejected the Supreme Courts' decision in 
Korematsu, which upheld the mass detainment of Japanese Americans 
during World War II. Although this decision is a sad part of our 
history, in a technical sense it is still legally binding. Judge 
Roberts' complete rejection of this approach gives me hope that he 
understands that governmental powers are not without limit in times of 
war.
  When asked whether he considers himself in the mold of Justices 
Scalia or Thomas, Judge Roberts stated clearly that he would be his own 
man. As I have stated, I expect that Judge Roberts will afford adequate 
deference to Congress, will follow longstanding precedent, and will 
apply the law in a fair and straightforward way. It is my hope that 
Judge Roberts will uphold these expectations.


                             Team Nutrition

  Mr. President, I now speak on a different issue. This is in relation 
to an amendment I have filed on the current pending legislation, the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. I will not offer that amendment at 
this point because we are still in discussions with the bill's manager 
and the ranking Democrat and their staffs to see if we can find an 
appropriate offset for this amendment. It is one I offer with Senator 
Lugar as my cosponsor. I believe it is a very important amendment. It 
is an amendment to provide $10 million in additional funding to expand 
and develop new team nutrition programs across the country.
  Senator Lugar and I offer this amendment in light of the growing and 
profound evidence that our Nation must confront what both the 
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human 
Services refer to as our ``growing epidemic of childhood obesity.''
  As Eric Bost, the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer 
Services, testified before Congress in April of this year:

       Nearly 365,000 deaths a year are related to poor diet and 
     physical inactivity; poor diet and inactivity are the second 
     leading cause of preventable death after smoking.

  He added:

       In the past 20 years the percentage of children who are 
     overweight has doubled and the percentage of adolescents who 
     are overweight has more than tripled. If we do not stem this 
     tide, this may be the first generation of children who will 
     not have a longer life expectancy than their parents.

  According to a 2005 Institute of Medicine report, there are 
approximately 9 million children nationwide over the age of 6 who are 
considered obese, resulting in increases in children being diagnosed 
with type II diabetes and hypertension. In addition to the negative 
effects on the health and well-being of these children, the rise in 
childhood obesity has a profound economic cost for our country.
  Between 1979 and 1999, obesity-associated hospital costs for children 
between the ages of 6 and 17 more than tripled, according to a study 
published in Children Pediatrics. To combat this, the administration 
has launched an initiative it refers to as part of its larger healthier 
U.S. initiative. It is called the Healthier U.S. School Challenge, 
which is focused on helping children live longer, better, and healthier 
lives.
  Secretary Ann Veneman and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
announced in July of this year:

       The school challenge builds upon the Team Nutrition Program 
     and recognizes schools that achieve nutrition and physical 
     activity standards.

  The School Challenge and Team Nutrition requires schools to do 
essentially five things: One, to serve national school lunch meals that 
are verified to meet nutrition standards; second, to offer nutrition 
education, which is the purpose of the amendment Senator Lugar and I 
are offering; third, to maintain national school lunch participation 
above certain levels; fourth, to offer physical activity for students 
in those schools; and fifth, to ensure that all foods offered through 
the school meet healthy standards as reflected in the dietary 
guidelines for Americans.
  Although there are 28,000 schools nationwide that are participating 
as of October of last year as Team Nutrition schools, that is far from 
adequate. There are way too many schools that are not participating 
that should be participating. In fact, these programs are chronically 
underfunded. Team nutrition has once again been proposed by the 
administration, and in the current spending bill before the Senate the 
proposed funding is $10 million. This is equivalent to 21 cents per 
year for every child in public school in this country. There is nobody 
who could credibly argue that 21 cents per child per year is an 
adequate funding level for nutrition education. Unfortunately, the $10 
million that has been proposed this year for funding in this program is 
what was proposed last year. It is what was proposed the year before. 
Essentially, we are on auto pilot in the Department of Agriculture with 
regard to this program. There is no effort to move ahead and deal with 
the very real, new challenges we have in trying to teach nutrition to 
the young people of this country.
  Furthermore, there is not a single set of funding in over half of the 
States in the country as Team Nutrition dollars are only going to 21 
States. Unfortunately, New Mexico is one of those States and is not 
able to participate in Team Nutrition at any level because the funding 
is so inadequate.
  Today, one in seven young people is obese in this country; one in 
three is

[[Page 20914]]

overweight. Obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children to 
become obese adults. Only 2 percent of children consume a diet that 
meets the five main recommendations of a healthy diet from the food 
guide pyramid that is published by the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
three out of four children in the United States consume more saturated 
fat than is recommended in the dietary guidelines for Americans 
published by the Secretary of Agriculture.
  We need to support any effort we can to curb this growing obesity 
problem. We need to support making our children healthier today by 
teaching them and the adults in their lives about the importance of 
healthy eating habits and physical activity.
  I urge the support of my amendment and Senator Lugar's amendment. As 
I indicated, we will not call it for consideration or a vote at this 
time, but hope we are able to find an appropriate offset and get 
agreement to add this amendment to the legislation.
  I would argue, I think without any reservation, that this is a small 
investment. It is a first step, but it is an important step we should 
be making as a Nation to confront the profound and growing problem many 
children in our society face.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, we understand in the House bill there is 
one section that deals with the country-of-origin labeling. This has 
been one of the most heated debates we have had in the livestock 
industry. It seems like it comes up every year.
  In 2002, a mandatory country-of-origin labeling law was passed in the 
farm bill. I remind my colleagues it is the law of the land. It was 
signed into law. USDA was directed to start writing the administrative 
rules that all meat being imported into the United States have a label 
on it and also that meat domestically produced would also have a label 
saying: ``Made in the U.S.A.'' That was in 2002. That was 3 years ago. 
We have gone through this debate, and I know sometimes it gets carried 
away and is very emotional. I understand in the House bill there is 
another delay in putting the rules into effect.
  Now, whether you agree or do not agree with the mandatory law, it is 
the law of the land. This old business of delay and delay and delay 
does not do anything for our beef or pork producers because there is no 
consistency in the law. They do not know what to expect and what to do.
  In Montana, my producers are tired of waiting. The USDA published a 
proposed rule on mandatory country-of-origin labeling on October 27, 
2003.
  The public had a chance to comment. In fact, they even extended the 
comment period to give folks extra time to weigh in on this important 
issue. Three years have gone by, and here we are--no progress on 
labeling. This is unacceptable. The Department needs to publish a final 
rule, and they need to do it now. It is long past time to implement 
country-of-origin labeling. It is the law of the land. If you don't 
like the law, then repeal the law. But let's move on. At a minimum, at 
least let us take a look at the rule. Congress voted to delay COOL once 
already, and the anti-COOL forces are at it again. But we don't know 
what the labeling requirements will look like. So the USDA needs to act 
and to take a leadership role, and it needs to be published.
  My producers in Montana will not tolerate another day of delay in 
this important program. We need to get it done, and it needs to be done 
right. And it needs to be mandatory. If Congress votes to make COOL 
voluntary, they may just as well repeal the law because voluntary COOL, 
or country-of-origin labeling, will not work.
  In October of 2002, the Secretary did publish guidelines for a 
voluntary labeling program. Any retailer who chose could begin labeling 
their products. There is a lot of misconception and misinformation. 
Some would contend that if we have a mandatory labeling law, that would 
take precedence over a marketing label. In other words, if you wanted 
to label beef as certified Angus beef, they couldn't do that. Sure, 
they can do that. They can do it as long as it is domestically 
produced, and the vast majority of it is, or any other marketing tool 
that a State should have or that a product should have can still be 
published, but we have to have a label USA.
  Since we put it off and the voluntary rule has been in effect, I 
wonder if anybody knows how many people took advantage of that 
voluntary program. It doesn't take long to count them: zero, none, 
zilch. Some of my friends say before we mandate a program, let's try 
making it voluntary. Well, we tried that. It has been a 3-year period. 
Nobody has used it. Nobody participated in a voluntary labeling 
program. Now it is time to shift the balance of power to the world of 
agricultural marketing.
  Overwhelmingly, the folks who support country-of-origin labeling are 
small cow/calf producers. These are the people who work hard every day 
to raise healthy calves, produce a product, highest quality beef in the 
world. They take a lot of pride in their products. They want consumers 
to know that their beef was made in America, made in the good old USA. 
But they don't have a whole lot to say about this decision, though, 
because after they sell their calves, they go to a feedlot, and from 
the feedlot they go into processing. From processing they go into the 
retail channels. Somebody doesn't want to say this is a product of the 
USA. Costly, have to trace, herd ID--all of those things, yes, there 
will probably be a little work to it. But labeling is no more than 
putting the label on of their own logo. It is time we did it.
  Cow/calf people right now have not had much luck in sharing our pride 
with our product. That is why Congress must act. Congress has acted. We 
have passed mandatory COOL 2002. It is the law of the land. That is the 
way it should be. Yet every year when Congress takes up Agriculture 
appropriations, we face another attempt on the part of some to prevent 
cattle producers from marketing their products as U.S. origin. What I 
am saying today is; enough is enough. Congress passed the law. Let's 
implement it. Producers are tired of waiting around. If you don't like 
the law, then repeal the law. But don't keep us in this limbo of 
standing here and waiting for something to happen, knowing that it 
never will.
  I know we will try and deal with this, whether it be on the Senate 
floor--I would probably prefer not because the chairman of the 
Agriculture appropriations said maybe this is a time that we should 
have a little scrap in conference, and that is where I think it should 
be done. I trust his judgment on that. But, nonetheless, I want 
everybody to know--and I want the House of Representatives to know--
that this is irresponsible. You passed that law just like we did. If 
you didn't like the law, then for goodness' sake, stand up and have 
nerve enough to repeal it. But if it is not repealed, let's implement 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


             Amendments Nos. 1803, 1804, and 1805, en bloc

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send to the desk a series of cleared 
amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1803, 1804, and 1805, en bloc.

  Mr. BENNETT. These amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask 
for their approval by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

[[Page 20915]]




                           Amendment No. 1803

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``Sec.   . Section 274(a)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:'' (C) It is not a violation of clauses 
     (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of 
     subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces 
     an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a 
     religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, 
     religious organization in the United States, or the agents or 
     officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, 
     invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the 
     United States to perform the vocation of a minister or 
     missionary for the denomination or organization in the United 
     States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, 
     notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical 
     assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the 
     minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination 
     for at least one year.


                           Amendment No. 1804

       On page 170 strike Section 767 and replace it with the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds provided for in this or any other Act may be 
     used in this and each fiscal year hereafter for the review, 
     clearance, or approval for sale in the United States of any 
     contact lens unless the manufacturer certifies that it makes 
     any contact lens it produces, markets, distributes, or sells 
     available in a commercially reasonable and non-discriminatory 
     manner directly to and generally within all alternative 
     channels of distribution: Provided, That for the purposes of 
     this section, the term `manufacturer' includes the 
     manufacturer and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 
     successors and assigns, and `alternative channels of 
     distribution' means any mail order company, Internet 
     retailer, pharmacy, buying club, department store, mass 
     merchandise outlet or other appropriate distribution 
     alternative without regard to whether it is associated with a 
     prescriber: Provided further, That nothing in this section 
     shall be interpreted as waiving any obligation of a seller 
     under 15 USC 7603: Provided further, That to facilitate 
     compliance with this section, 15 USC 7605 is amended by 
     inserting after the period: ``A manufacturer shall make any 
     contact lens it produces, markets, distributes or sells 
     available in a commercially reasonable and non-discriminatory 
     manner directly to and generally within all alternative 
     channels of distribution; provided that, for the purposes of 
     this section, the term `alternative channels of distribution' 
     means any mail order company, Internet retailer, pharmacy, 
     buying club, department store, mass merchandise outlet or 
     other appropriate distribution alternative without regard to 
     whether it is associated with a prescriber; the term 
     `manufacturer' includes the manufacturer and its parents, 
     subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns; and any 
     rule prescribed under this section shall take effect not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment.''


                           Amendment No. 1805

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``Sec.   . The Federal facility located at the South 
     Mississippi Branch Experiment Station in Poplarville, 
     Mississippi, and known as the ``Southern Horticultural 
     Laboratory'', shall be known and designated as the ``Thad 
     Cochran Southern Horticultural Laboratory'': Provided, That 
     any reference in law, map, regulation, document, paper, or 
     other record of the United States to such Federal facility 
     shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Thad Cochran 
     Southern Horticultural Laboratory''.


                    Amendment No. 1752, as Modified

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 1752, the amendment be 
modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       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 
     Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians: 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.''


                     Amendments Nos. 1806 and 1807

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there are cleared amendments at the desk, 
one from Senator Kyl and one from Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous 
consent that they be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Kyl, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1806.
       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1807.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1806

          (Purpose: To convey title in certain real property)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. As soon as practicable after the Agricultural 
     Research Service operations at the Western Cotton Research 
     Laboratory located at 4135 East Broadway Road in Phoenix, 
     Arizona, have ceased, the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     convey, without consideration, to the Arizona Cotton Growers 
     Association and Supima all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the real property at that location, 
     including improvements.


                           amendment no. 1807

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress 
      a report on whether to restore the National Organic Program)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, conduct an evaluation of any impacts of the court 
     decision in Harvey v. Veneman, 396 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. Me. 
     2005); and
       (2) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report that--
       (A) describes the results of the evaluation conducted under 
     paragraph (1);
       (B) includes a determination by the Secretary on whether 
     restoring the National Organic Program, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the court decision described in 
     paragraph (1), would adversely affect organic farmers, 
     organic food processors, and consumers;
       (C) analyzes issues regarding the use of synthetic 
     ingredients in processing and handling;
       (D) analyzes the utility of expedited petitions for 
     commercially unavailable agricultural commodities and 
     products; and
       (E) considers the use of crops and forage from land 
     included in the organic system plan of dairy farms that are 
     in the third year of organic management.


                           Amendment No. 1808

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is an amendment from Senator 
Feingold at the desk which I would like to call up and have a voice 
vote on at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Feingold, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1808.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To direct the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service to publish uniform methods and rules for addressing 
                        chronic wasting disease)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___.(a) Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service (referred to in this section 
     as the ``Administrator'') shall publish in the Federal 
     Register uniform methods and rules for addressing chronic 
     wasting disease.
       (b) If the Administrator does not publish the uniform 
     methods and rules by the deadline specified in subsection 
     (a), not later than 30 days after the deadline and every 30 
     days thereafter until the uniform methods and rules are 
     published in accordance with that subsection, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (1) describes the status of the uniform methods and rules; 
     and
       (2) provides an estimated completion date for the uniform 
     methods and rules.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1808) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 20916]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1809

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk offered 
by Senator McConnell which I would like to call up for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1809.

  The amendment is as follows:

             (Purpose: To provide for livestock assistance)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___.(a) In carrying out a livestock assistance, 
     compensation, or feed program, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall include horses within the definition of ``livestock'' 
     covered by the program.
       (b)(1) Section 602(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 
     U.S.C. 1471(2)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``horses'', after ``bison''; and
       (B) by striking ``equine animals used for food or in the 
     production of food,''.
       (2) Section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51) is amended 
     by inserting ``(including losses to elk, reindeer, bison, and 
     horses)'' after ``livestock losses''.
       (3) Section 10104(a) of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1472(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
       (4) Section 203(d)(2) of the Agricultural Assistance Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 541) is amended by striking 
     ``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
       (c)(1) This section and the amendments made by this section 
     apply to losses resulting from a disaster that occurs on or 
     after July 28, 2005.
       (2) This section and the amendments made by this section do 
     not apply to losses resulting from a disaster that occurred 
     before July 28, 2005.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to 
with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1809) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Country of Origin Labeling

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about part of 
the Senate bill that has to do with the identification of livestock 
products and the country of origin labeling. This is an issue we have 
talked about for some time and one that I think is very important. It 
is important to my State and to livestock producers there.
  Country of origin labeling is a very simple thing: When you go into 
the store to buy a package of meat, it says on there where it comes 
from. That is not a unique idea. We do it on T-shirts and jackets and 
everything else and often many other foods. I think people would like 
to know, and have the right to know, where that product comes from.
  Country of origin labeling actually was put on the Agriculture bill 
about 3 years ago, I believe. I was one of the original sponsors of the 
amendment that put it on the Agriculture bill in 2002, as a matter of 
fact. It has been around since. It simply says that consumers have the 
right to know what was the origin of this particular product that they 
are buying. It can be done by identifying the product as it comes off 
the farm or range and following it through the process. It does not 
require the same thing for hamburger or mixed food, which would be very 
difficult.
  I believe most consumers support mandatory labeling and many nations 
require it on many kinds of foods and other products, including the 
United States. But this bill, even though it passed originally, has 
been postponed several times. I think there is something to that effect 
in the House appropriations bill now. It is time we do it. We ought to 
come to the snubbing post and get something done. It can be done. It 
has been done other places. I think there is support for doing it.
  There is labeling of fish, shellfish, and other foods, and that 
appears to be working. As I said, it has been delayed more than once, 
and I think the idea is it would be put in place in 2006.
  I am asking, as we bring this bill to completion and come on to 
working with the House in the conference, that we make sure we allow 
this bill, that has been passed and approved by the House and the 
Senate in the past, to go on and become law.
  I will not take a great deal more time. I wish to point out it is 
something, No. 1, that can be done; No. 2, that there has been support 
for doing it. What we have done is kept postponing doing it. There are 
some people, some of the retailers and so on, who do not want to have 
to go to the trouble. But I think the process, for the consumers, is a 
good idea. People should have the right and they have the desire, I 
believe, to know the source of the product that they and their family 
are going to consume. I ask, as we go forward with this bill, we should 
keep that in mind and seek to complete this whole action, allowing it 
to move forward.
  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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendments Nos. 1786, 1800, 1785

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that there are three 
amendments at the desk; one offered by Senator Gordon Smith, one 
offered by Senator John McCain, and one offered by Max Baucus.
  I ask these amendments be called up and considered en bloc. They are 
amendments No. 1786, for Senator Smith; No. 1785, for Senator McCain; 
and No. 1800, for Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1786, 1800, and 1785, en bloc.

  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1786

(Purpose: To allow the Secretary to authorize the use of certain funds 
that would otherwise be recaptured under the rural business enterprise 
                             grant program)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. With respect to the sale of the Thermo Pressed 
     Laminates building in Klamath Falls, Oregon, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may allow the Klamath County Economic Development 
     Corporation to establish a revolving economic development 
     loan fund with the funds that otherwise would be required to 
     be repaid to the Secretary in accordance with the rural 
     business enterprise grant under section 310B(c)(1)(B) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1932(c)).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1800

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding public sector 
           funding of agricultural research and development)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___.(a) The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Research and development have been critical components 
     of the prosperity of the United States.
       (2) The United States is entering an increasingly 
     competitive world in the 21st century.
       (3) The National Academy of Sciences has found that public 
     agricultural research and development expenditures in the 
     United States were the lowest of any developed country in the 
     world.

[[Page 20917]]

       (4) The Nation needs to ensure that public spending for 
     agricultural research is commensurate with the importance of 
     agriculture to the long-term economic health of the Nation.
       (5) Research and development is critical to ensuring that 
     American agriculture remains strong and vital in the coming 
     decades.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that, in order for the 
     United States to remain competitive, the President and the 
     Department of Agriculture should increase public sector 
     funding of agricultural research and development.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1785

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding funding 
     directives contained in H.R. 2744 or its accompanying report)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 7___. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) In a time of national catastrophe, it is the 
     responsibility of Congress and the Executive Branch to take 
     quick and decisive action to help those in need.
       (2) The size, scope, and complexity of Hurricane Katrina 
     are unprecedented, and the emergency response and long-term 
     recovery efforts will be extensive and require significant 
     resources.
       (3) It is the responsibility of Congress and the Executive 
     Branch to ensure the financial stability of the nation by 
     being good stewards of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that any funding directive contained in this Act, or its 
     accompanying report, that is not specifically authorized in 
     any Federal law as of the date of enactment of this section, 
     or Act or resolution passed by the Senate during the 1st 
     Session of the 109th Congress prior to such date, or proposed 
     in pursuance to an estimate submitted in accordance with law, 
     that is for the benefit of an identifiable program, project, 
     activity, entity, or jurisdiction and is not directly related 
     to the impact of Hurricane Katrina, may be redirected to 
     recovery efforts if the appropriate head of an agency or 
     department determines, after consultation with appropriate 
     Congressional Committees, that the funding directive is not 
     of national significance or is not in the public interest.

                           amendment no. 1785

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is 
nearly identical to the amendment that was adopted unanimously last 
week during debate on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. 
It is another attempt to reign in wasteful spending, particularly 
during this time when portions of our country along the gulf are 
enduring the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina--indeed, a 
national tragedy.
  As our Nation continues to manage the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 
the Congress and the administration must do what it can to help the 
hundreds of thousands of victims of one of the worst natural disasters 
in our history. And now, another hurricane is gaining momentum which 
could cause even more serious destruction to the region.
  The costs of the recovery and relief effort will be enormous. We have 
already appropriated more than $62 billion, and that is likely a mere 
downpayment on the yet to be determined total expenditures that will be 
required. Indeed, we live in times of great need and limited resources.
  Americans are being called to sacrifice, and so many are selflessly 
contributing what they can to the recovery efforts--they are donating 
money, opening their homes, or offering other useful assistance. 
Congress needs to do its part too. To the extent that it is possible, 
we should pay for this effort now rather than pass on even more debt to 
future generations. We should also make better use of taxpayers' money 
by eliminating wasteful spending, and that is what this amendment is 
about.
  This year's Agriculture appropriations bill, and particularly its 
accompanying report, contain numerous questionable earmarks, the 
majority of which warrant further review, particularly given the 
circumstances that have arisen since the bill was reported by the 
Appropriations Committee in July.
  Here are just a few examples: $2,000,000 for the National Sheep 
Industry Improvement Center; $50,000 earmarked to study the shiitake 
mushroom; $300,000 for USDA research at the Utah State University Space 
Dynamics Laboratory to accurately measure gaseous emissions from 
agriculture operations; $200,000 for grapefruit juice/drug interaction 
research in Winterhaven, FL; $140,000 to the University of Nevada Reno 
to conduct a feasibility study for a cooperative sheep slaughter 
facility; $1,000,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket pest control in 
the State of Utah; $24,066,000 above the budget request for boll weevil 
pest management; $1,150,000 above the budget request for grasshopper 
pest management; $300,000 for biological weed control in Sidney, MT; 
$300,000 for the healthy beef initiative, Little Rock, AR; $200,000 to 
study sudden oak death in Oregon; $600,000 for cranberry production 
assistance in the States of Massachusetts and Wisconsin; $6,000,000 for 
the construction of the Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory in 
Bowling, KY; $1,000,000 for multiflora rose control in the State of 
West Virginia; $1,500,000 for the construction of the Center for Grape 
Genomics in Geneva, NY; $100,000 earmarked for animal identification 
and tracking in the State of Washington; $100,000 for brown tree snake 
management in Hawaii and Guam; $248,000 to reduce beaver damage to 
cropland and forests in the State of Wisconsin; and $400,000 earmarked 
for preventing blackbird damage to sunflowers in North and South 
Dakota.
  Certainly I must not be the only one who questions these kinds of 
earmarks. We simply cannot afford ``business as usual'' around here.
  The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I am proposing would allow for 
a redirection of the funding for any of the earmarks that have not been 
authorized, have not been requested by the President, or are not 
related to the impact of Hurricane Katrina to be used for recovery 
efforts. This would occur if the agency or Department head determines, 
after consultation with the appropriate congressional committees--and 
this would mean authorizers as well as appropriators--that such an 
earmark is not of national significance or is not in the public 
interest. Since almost all of these earmarks are in the report 
language, which is not something I can amend, this amendment at least 
sends a strong message to the agencies that they will be held 
accountable for reviewing these directives and ensuring they are only 
funded if found to be in the public interest.
  I hope the amendment can be easily adopted and not take much of the 
Senate's time, particularly since a similar provision was agreed to 
last week. In a time of national catastrophe, it is the responsibility 
of the U.S. Congress to take quick and decisive action to help those in 
need. It is not appropriate to continue the practice of wastefully 
earmarking scarce funds in the face of such a great tragedy. This 
should be a time of sacrifice for the sake of our suffering citizens.
  Mr. President, despite high gas prices, despite a swelling $331 
billion deficit, despite our military operations overseas, and despite 
our domestic emergencies, pork continues to thrive in good times and 
bad. The cumulative effect of these earmarks erodes the integrity of 
the appropriations process and, by extension, our responsibility to the 
taxpayer.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for 
agreeing to accept this amendment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 1741

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Mr. DeWine, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1741.

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

[[Page 20918]]



 (Purpose: To pledge continued support for international hunger relief 
  efforts and express the sense of the Senate that the United States 
Government should use resources and diplomatic leverage to secure food 
  aid for countries that are in need of further assistance to prevent 
                       acute and chronic hunger)

       On page 173, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 7___. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Senate--
       (A) encourages expanded efforts to alleviate hunger 
     throughout developing countries; and
       (B) pledges to continue to support international hunger 
     relief efforts;
       (2) the United States Government should use financial and 
     diplomatic resources to work with other donors to ensure that 
     food aid programs receive all necessary funding and supplies; 
     and
       (3) food aid should be provided in conjunction with 
     measures to alleviate hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have worked a great deal with my friend 
from Ohio on international hunger issues and encourage my colleagues to 
support his amendment.
  I also ask that I and Senator Chambliss be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. In recent weeks, we have witnessed disaster and hunger and 
displacement on our own shores. Those images are compelling. They 
remind us that hunger and displacement and enormous human need are 
chronic conditions in many parts of the world. For the people living in 
these circumstances, U.S. food aid is as important as it has ever been.
  I hope this amendment forces policymakers to rethink and recommit 
themselves to international hunger relief.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1741) was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1812

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for the 
senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Reid, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1812.

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

(Purpose: To provide that funds made available for the Plant Materials 
    Center in Fallon, Nevada, shall remain available until expended)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Amounts made available for the Plant Materials 
     Center in Fallon, Nevada, under the heading ``conservation 
     operations'' under the heading ``natural resources 
     conservation service'' of title II of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 
     Stat. 2823) shall remain available until expended.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be agreed to on 
a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1812) was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. 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 dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________