Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2003

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I have to chair a Democratic Policy luncheon in a few moments. I say to the manager and ranking member, I have two amendments to this bill. This is one. I will come back posthaste following the luncheon and offer the other. I don't want to hold up this bill. I want to have both amendments considered. I know you want to complete work on this important appropriations bill.

Let me describe the amendment that I have now offered dealing with something I think is very important.

We have in this country a livestock industry that is $175 billion. It is a very large industry, an important industry. In North Dakota, it is roughly $500 million, and it is important to our State. Ranching and farming, of course, represent the bread and butter of our economy in North Dakota.

Let me talk about some of the difficulties we face in the beef and livestock industry. We have had in some recent years outbreaks of something called BSE or more commonly referred to as mad cow disease. It is devastating. It is heartbreaking to see the consequences of an outbreak of mad cow disease on producers in a country where it occurs.

I hold up a chart that shows a pretty graphic picture of piles and piles of dead cattle with a fellow up here who is looking at all these cattle that have been slaughtered as a result of mad cow disease. This was in March 1997. The costs to that industry in England were devastating.

Our neighbor to the north, Canada, had one animal diagnosed with mad cow disease, an animal that appeared sick when it was slaughtered in January. They apparently severed the head and put it in a cooler, and some 4 months later they tested it and discovered that the animal, slaughtered in January, had mad cow disease or BSE.

As a result, we closed our border to the live import of cattle from Canada. It has been a devastating time for Canadian producers. Our hearts go out to them. It is a difficult situation for them. But what is important for us is to protect our industry, our beef industry, our livestock industry.

Last week the Secretary of Agriculture indicated that she is moving now toward putting Canada to a ``minimal risk'' status with respect to the import of cattle which would set up the capability of importing live cattle from Canada. We are not now importing them. We import some slaughtered beef products but not live cattle.

The amendment I offer is rather simple. The United States, with most other countries, belongs to the World Organization for Animal Health. That organization has protocols, describing the timeline for when you might allow imports into your country from a country that has mad cow disease or BSE.

Let me read the sense of the Senate: It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should not allow the importation of live cattle from any country known to have BSE, better known as mad cow disease, unless the country complies with the animal health guidelines established by the World Organization for Animal Health, and, No. 2, should abide by the international standards for continued health and safety of the U.S. livestock industry.

What are those guidelines? The guidelines may be changed. I am told there are discussions to do so. I am not necessarily opposed to changing them. But whatever the guidelines are, they are. At the moment those guidelines talk about a country or zone with minimal BSE risk:

The cattle population of a country or zone may be

considered as presenting a minimal BSE risk should the

country or zone comply with the following requirements:

The last indigenous case of BSE was reported more than

seven years ago.

There is another category more than 4 years ago.

In this case, the case of mad cow disease occurring in Canada, it was some 10 months ago, and it was disclosed only 6 months ago. We are talking now about opening the border to imports of cattle from Canada.

That could be a devastating risk to our livestock industry. We have a lot of ranchers trying to make a living. We ought to care about the risk posed to them if we import cattle from a country that had a case of BSE within recent months.

We have a lot to lose. Let me describe a circumstance, for example, with Japan. In the year 2000, beef consumption in Japan was at 1.577 million tons carcass weight equivalent. BSE was discovered in Japan in September 2001. That beef consumption dropped by 16 percent in 1 year. Compounding those problems, Japan just announced its second case of BSE in an animal less than 30 months of age. The most recent case is a cow 21 months of age. USDA is proposing a rule that would allow cattle 30 months or younger to be imported to the U.S.

We have organizations that say, well, it is not going to be a big problem. In fact, a Harvard risk assessment on BSE and its effects came to the conclusion: Even if infected animals entered into the U.S. animal agricultural system from Canada, the risk of it spreading extensively within the U.S. herd was low.

I am sorry. If we have a case of BSE, mad cow disease, in this country, the risk is dramatic for our beef industry, just as it was for Japan--a 16-percent reduction in beef consumption. It is a devastating blow to our industry if it occurs.

I believe at this point we ought to proceed with caution. We are not talking about 4 years or 7 years, which represents the guideline of the International Organization for Animal Health. We are talking just a matter of months past the time when a case of BSE was disclosed by our neighbors to the north. I regret that has happened to them. I know it is heartbreaking for them. I know they would like to move cattle into our marketplace as early as possible, but the fact is, our obligation is to try to find every way possible to prevent an outbreak of mad cow disease in this country because it would be devastating to a significant, vibrant industry, devastating to a lot of ranchers out there trying to make a living today.

We ought not have USDA move as quickly as they want to move. First, it is an abrogation of the guidelines we signed up for. The guidelines of the International Code of Animal Health don't describe a circumstance in which you change the rules and allow the importation of live cattle from a country which has had an experience with mad cow disease in just a matter of recent months.

The World Organization for Animal Health is made up of 164 nations, our Nation included, and Canada. One of the missions is to develop guidelines that relate to the rules that member nations use to protect themselves against diseases without setting up unjustifiable sanitary barriers. I agree with all that. But I am saying that the guidelines in this organization of which we are a member and to which we are a party are explicit. They do not include a circumstance in which we decide, some 6 months after the disclosure of mad cow disease, that we will take live cattle imported from that country into our marketplace. That poses significant risks to our producers.

The National Cattleman's Beef Association, NCBA, supports the amendment. The R-CALF organization supports this amendment. These are the two largest beef organizations in the United States. I offer it today hopeful for its consideration. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

As I indicated when I started, I have to chair a Democratic Policy Committee lunch in about 1 minute.

So what I would like to do is have this amendment be pending, and it would be preferable, if you want, to set it aside and take other amendments while I am at lunch. I will come back to the floor at 2 o'clock and say a few more words and perhaps I can get the ranking member and manager to agree to accept this amendment.

I yield the floor.

That is an offer I cannot refuse, although the not- talking proviso will not relate to my second amendment. I will come back--actually for the courtesy of the manager and ranking member, as I know they want to move the bill--and offer my second amendment. I am happy to do that if he is willing to take the amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I might find my way into the order so I might also offer an amendment. I see the Senator from Wyoming, who I expect is wanting to speak, and because we will probably go back and forth, I wonder if I might get unanimous consent to be recognized following the presentation from the Senator from Wyoming. I know the Senator from South Dakota has now offered an amendment. My expectation would be the Senator from Wyoming will speak next, but might I receive consent to be recognized following the presentation from the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, has proposed his amendment. I would like to speak in support of that amendment. Other colleagues have already spoken. This is an important amendment to consider.

Let me talk about the issue. We call it, this debate in the Congress, country-of-origin labeling: COOL. That does not mean anything to anybody. The question with this amendment and this issue is, Should the American people be able to determine where the meat they are purchasing at the meat counter comes from? Should they be able to know where this product comes from?

We have a roomful of people wearing neckties in this Chamber. If anyone looks at their necktie, they can find from the label where that necktie comes from. The same is true with shirts and shoes and trousers. The same is true with much of what we use in our daily lives. We require labeling. We demand it. Why? Because the consumer is advantaged by having it. Except meat and meat products. Go to the grocery store; take a look at the grocery store shelf and evaluate the meat. Consumers do not have the foggiest idea where the products came from--none.

Why is it important to be able to identify the origin of meat or meat products you purchase in this country? For a number of reasons. We produce the highest quality food in the world by far. Why? Because we have the highest standards, and we demand conformance to those standards. The American people, if they want to choose U.S.-grown beef, U.S.-produced beef or beef products or meat or meat products, at this point they cannot do it because the labeling does not exist.

Now, the labeling of meat and meat products has been done routinely in many other areas of the world. Other countries do it. It is not impossible. It is not even prohibitively expensive. It is just if you have the will to do it, you do it. In our country, at this point, we have not had the will.

Finally, the Congress passed a piece of legislation saying you must. We have a requirement that there be country-of-origin labeling, meat and meat products be labeled as to their origin, where they were produced.

Now the House of Representatives has passed an amendment that says they are going to shut off funding for that at a time when the Department of Agriculture has already dragged its feet in implementing it because they do not want to implement it.

Let me describe where this is important. Let me describe a May 1999 inspection in Hermosillo, Mexico, when inspectors went into a plant in this little town in Mexico. I will tell you what they found. U.S. inspectors paid a rare visit, we are told, to the plant in May 1999 and were greeted by filth and flies. They cut off trade at once--or at least they thought they did.

From the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

Shanks and briskets [were] contaminated with feces . . . .

In the refrigerator . . . . A disease-condemned carcass was

observed ready for boning and distribution in commerce.

Even before the inspectors left Mexico, Mexican officials were at work to restore this plant's right to sell meat to Americans. Over the following months, this plant regained its export license, switched owners, changed names, and yet the USDA has never returned.

So an American consumer buying meat from this plant, can they know it? Will they know it? Will they have information that tells them this is where the meat comes from? The answer at this point, regrettably, is, no, they will not know whether that meat comes from the most regulated laboratory or most inspected plant in the United States or from this plant in Mexico where inspectors were greeted by filth and flies and a disease-condemned carcass ready for boning and distribution in commerce.

Is it important for the American people to distinguish between cuts of meat that come from an inspected facility in this country that meets rigorous standards and a facility as described in this article that comes from that community in Mexico?

What about the issue of BSE or mad cow disease? We now hear this week we have another case of mad cow disease in Japan; a 21-month-old bull is the country's ninth known case. It is devastating for the Japanese, I know, to have cases of mad cow disease or BSE. We know our neighbors to the north have had a case of mad cow disease. In January, a sick cow, staggering in a lot, was nonetheless slaughtered with other cows. They severed the head and put the head on a shelf, and that head sat on the shelf for 4 months. Finally, they sent it away for testing, to discover that the cow they slaughtered in January, in May was determined to have had mad cow disease.

As a result, the Secretary of Agriculture cut off shipments of live cattle from Canada into this country. Why is that important? Because our beef herd is free of mad cow disease and has always been free of it. It is devastating to a beef industry, an industry in just North Dakota worth $500 million--half a billion. It is devastating to that industry to have an outbreak of mad cow disease. We want to protect our industry. That is why I offered the amendment earlier this afternoon that has been accepted. But we had USDA moving quickly last week to create what is called minimum risk for classification for Canada so younger animals from Canada can move into this marketplace. Should the American people, can

the American people, determine where their meat comes from--Canada, Mexico, Japan, or the U.S.?

The answer, for those of us who strongly support country-of-origin labeling laws, is the American people deserve that opportunity and need the right to know where their meat and meat products come from; they need to be able to make selections as consumers in a thoughtful, intelligent way.

Regrettably, that is not now the case. That is why the Congress previously passed legislation. Regrettably, the Department of Agriculture is dragging its feet, and the House of Representatives, in my judgment, has caved in to the big economic interests that want to scuttle this all together. They don't want to have anything to do with meat labeling. They say it costs too much.

Only in this town would we not laugh out loud at the cost estimates that come from the USDA. They are a joke. Only in this town would it become part of legitimate debate and thoughtful discussion about how many billions--yes, billions--of dollars this would cost, they claim, to administer. That is complete, sheer, utter nonsense and USDA knows it.

The question for this Congress is, Will it stand behind its previous decision and its previous judgment to require country-of-origin labeling on behalf of the American consumer? Will it stand behind that? I hope the answer is yes. If that answer is yes, then we need to support this bipartisan amendment that is offered by my colleague from South Dakota.

One final point. In the haste to try to discredit the country-of- origin labeling, the Department of Agriculture put out a notice that this would cost billions of dollars and they also indicated that it would have zero benefits. Does anyone really believe an estimate of the cost of the implementation of this law would provide no benefits--no benefits--to this country and the consumers of this country?

That is why this attack on the country-of-origin labeling is a joke. It is why we must adopt this amendment. We must stand for the American consumer. I know big economic interests swing big clubs in this area. I have been in conference committees where we thought we had this done before long ago and we had folks from the meat industry out in the halls buttonholing people. The fact is, we need to get this done, and it needs to be done now. That is why I support the amendment offered by my colleague from South Dakota.

While I have the floor, might I also indicate that the amendment I indicated to the Senator from Utah that I intended to offer is ready. I can offer it at the pleasure of the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Wisconsin. Senator Burns from Montana and I are both in the Chamber, and both of us would like to speak in support of our amendment. We very much hope the manager and the ranking member will be taking the amendment. But if not, of course, we will want a record vote.

I will certainly offer the amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Burns at your pleasure. So I would be happy to hear what the Senator from Utah would like to have happen with respect to that amendment.

Mr. President, I missed the comment by the Senator from Utah.

If Senator Harkin arrives on the floor, I will begin slowing down, if that is the question, and come to a complete stop at an appropriate moment.

I do not intend to speak at great length on this amendment. I know my colleague, Senator Burns, also wishes to speak, as well as my colleague, Senator Conrad, wishes to speak. My expectation is that the presentations will all be relatively brief, but I certainly would respect the interests of the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, let me understand, the 30 minutes would be under my control?

I understand.

Amendment No. 2117

Mr. President, I can send the amendment to the desk if we wish to consider it now. My thought was it would be accepted and probably be put in a managers' amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, if I might describe this amendment--and I will do so rather briefly because I spoke about it yesterday--I think we are on the road perhaps to having this amendment accepted, in which case we would not need a recorded vote. As I indicated, I offer this amendment with my colleagues, Senator Burns of Montana and Senator Conrad of North Dakota. This amendment deals with a provision we put in the farm bill having the rural utility services create a broadband loan program.

During consideration of the farm bill, which we enacted in the Congress, we provided a very important provision that will provide for loans for the build-out of broadband capability throughout rural areas of our country.

The build-out was part of $100 million in direct spending to subsidize $3.5 billion of loan funds at good interest rates that would entice those who are interested in building out the infrastructure of broadband capability to rural areas to begin doing so.

Now, why is that important? It is important because if someone is on the wrong side of the digital divide and they do not have broadband capability in rural areas, their opportunity for economic development is gone. So we have been trying to find ways to help develop the build- out of the infrastructure for broadband capability in all areas of the country, especially and including rural areas.

The $100 million in that bill was going to provide an opportunity for $3.5 billion in broadband loans over the 6 years, as I indicated.

The Rural Utility Service announced they were going to combine $40 million in the farm bill for the first 2 years and package that up. They said they would make $1.4 billion in loans available for broadband buildout. As a result of that, they would provide not only loans but $80 million in loan guarantees, and so they would have $1.295 billion of loans at the Treasury rate of interest.

This is easily the biggest broadband loan program in the history of this country. Why is it important? Let me give an example, going back to the 1930s. In the 1930s, very few farms and rural areas were wired for electricity, so we created the Rural Electrification Act, the REA Program, and began stringing lines to the rural reaches of America. That program was remarkably successful in providing to small towns and family farms in this country the capability of using electricity to enhance their productivity. When we electrified rural America, we dramatically increased the productivity of America's family farms.

We now are in a circumstance where we talk about the information revolution and the new technology and information and something called broadband. Broadband simply describes the diameter of the pipes through which information flows. If you have dial-up connections, you have a computer, and you know there is a certain timeframe moving around your computer and moving around the Internet. If you have broadband or advanced communications services, it is a bigger pipe and you can move vast amounts of data very quickly.

The opportunity to do that is critically important to small areas, rural areas of the country in order for them to attract economic opportunity and economic development. Without it, they are consigned to a future without that kind of economic opportunity. That is why we are trying to provide it here, just as we did in the underlying 1996 act which I helped write. We talked about advanced services then, comparable services at comparable rates. You have broadband in most big cities now. The question is, will rural areas have the same opportunities?

What happened was RUS put this money together and they were going to put out nearly $1.3 billion of loans at 4.9 percent. Again, easily the most significant program of building out information infrastructure. What happened was they set a July 31 deadline for applications. They received applications for $1 billion in loans. That means there are people out there very anxious to move this capability out to rural areas. That is a big deal. This is not just some theoretical argument. This is talking about whether, in the rural reaches of America, you will have economic opportunity and jobs and growth again.

We have $1 billion in loan applications. Now the language that has been included in the Agriculture appropriations bill essentially eliminates the broadband section of the farm bill. It will put some money into loans, yes, but does so without the mandatory spending for it and would essentially cut in half the loan levels.

That is particularly bothersome because what is going to happen is they are going to have to start over down at USDA with a much smaller amount of money and much less impact on broadband capability.

The proposal I offer with my colleagues would provide an additional $6 million. This does not make us whole, but instead of going from $20 million down to $9 million, roughly we go back up to $15 million. It is not the full money we need, but it would increase the $9.1 million to $15.1 million. This is not a massive amount of money, given the bill we are talking about. It just is not. But it is very important for us to pass this amendment because otherwise we will have had a significant start, with great promise, and will have brought this to a grinding halt, and we will have the promise of broadband buildout all across rural America only to find out Congress put the brakes on it. That is not something we want to do.

I mentioned yesterday, recently when I was in my hometown of 300 people, a small community in northwestern North Dakota, I walked into what used to be my old boyhood home. I asked the folks if I could just stop in and see it. I hadn't been there for many years. The young woman who now lives there with her husband and children said she was happy to show me my old home. I looked around. In her kitchen--I hope she won't mind me saying this--on the shelf she had a piece of equipment. I couldn't recognize it at first, but it had a camera attached to it, and the camera was taking a picture of something on a spool, hanging on a metal spool. It was a bracelet. She said: I am taking a picture of this bracelet. Then I scan it and put it on the Internet, on eBay, because I sell things on eBay.

Here is a woman in a very small community in western North Dakota who is a merchant selling products on eBay. It shows that all over this country people have enterprising hopes about what they want to do, what kind of business they want to be engaged in. But if we do not have the capability to build out broadband services to rural areas, we will forever consign them to a dismal economic future.

Let me make one final point. That little town I grew up in, Regent, ND, a wonderful community, is part of Headinger County. My home county is larger than the State of Rhode Island. When I left it, there were 5,000 people living there. There are now 2,800 citizens living in Headinger County. The State demographer says in the year 2020 they expect it to be 1,800 people; 5,000 to 1,800 in a county the size of Rhode Island, slightly larger.

Those people want opportunity. They want to build and grow. They want some hope for the future. That woman, in that little home selling on eBay, represents that spark of enterprise, that hope that maybe things can be better. Maybe you can build businesses in those rural areas. But you simply cannot do it if you don't move ahead with this program we put in the farm bill.

I introduced legislation about 3 years ago. Much of it was put in the farm bill to create these loan funds. I was astounded to learn this appropriations bill effectively emasculates the funding that would have been automatic for the 6-year period, that would have created this aggressive broadband buildout. That is why we have to restore some of this funding. It is important.

People say it is a little issue. It is not a little issue to people in my hometown or other hometowns all across this country, living in rural areas, who want to make a living and want to have some hope for the future. That is what this is about.

We have already had a pattern and a template for how this works. It is the old REA Program. It worked in a wonderful way to electrify rural America and offer people light and hope. This is the same proposition. Let's not miss this opportunity.

Mr. President, I indicated Senator Burns, Senator Conrad, Senator Clinton, and Senator Leahy are cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent they be added.

I yield some time to the Senator from Montana, followed by time to my colleague from North Dakota. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana and if he wishes more, there is certainly more available.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Conrad from North Dakota.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I will take one final minute, and I think we are finished speaking on this side. And I will yield back the remainder of my time when we are finished.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.

Let me finish this discussion by adding another point. There is a book titled ``Distance is Dead.'' The book describes the information revolution. From almost anyplace you are a click away from anywhere. In North Dakota, we are a click away from the Hudson River. We are as close to Manhattan as the Hudson River with telecommunication and new technologies. But that is only the case if you have the buildout of broadband, if you have the capability to allow people to use this Internet in the way that most urban areas are able to do it.

We have in rural areas--I have mentioned my hometown--much that others aspire to recreate in our country: strong schools, good neighbors, great places to raise kids. We have a lot of things that make these small towns in rural areas wonderful places to live. But we need jobs there. We need economic opportunity development there.

If distance is dead, then opportunity is born in rural areas with information technology. If we are a click away from anywhere, if we are a nanosecond away by clicking a mouse and providing information anywhere, any time, then we have opportunities to attract businesses and create jobs in these wonderful areas of America's heartland. But if we do not have the buildout of the infrastructure, if you do not have similar opportunities with broadband development in rural areas, then you have what is called a digital divide.

If you are on the wrong side of that digital divide, if you live on the wrong side of that digital divide, you are in big trouble; your community is going nowhere. That is why this is an important issue. It is why we have been working on it for some long while and why this amendment deserves to be approved.

We have no further speakers. I know Senator Bennett has other things he wishes to do with the bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the chairman is correct. I don't plan on speaking on mad cow disease. I will speak for approximately 20 minutes. If anybody comes in with a relevant amendment, I will yield the floor. I am going to talk on the subject of Iraq.

Two days ago, the Congress completed action on the President's request for $87 billion. In fact, I think later today there is going to be a signing down at the White House for military operations reconstruction money for Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, that relates to that $87 billion request.

The debate we had in the Congress over that issue reflected more than our concern about the amount of money. I think it reflected more than the sticker shock that the American people felt when they heard the $87 billion number. I think it reflected the fact that there is a crisis in confidence in the President's leadership in Iraq. To put it more straightforward, there is a grave doubt about the policy we are engaging in now and its prospects for success.

The American people not only have those doubts, but I know, and we all know on the floor, that a number of Members on both sides of this aisle have doubts about the policy. I voted for the $87 billion, and I believe we needed to do that. But we cannot afford to fail in Iraq, and there was no option but the one before us.

It seems to me that we are going to have great difficulty succeeding in Iraq unless we act more wisely, and I want to discuss that very briefly today. I will be coming to the floor next week with a much more expanded speech on this subject. In order for us to succeed, I think we have to simply change our policy. We have to change the policy we are pursuing now in several very important ways.

First, in order to determine whether or not we think this policy is working, it seems we have to understand the situation on the ground in Iraq. There are two realities in Iraq right now. One is that there is some real progress being made: Schools are being opened; hospitals are open; there is a number of reconstruction projects underway; the setting up of local councils is occurring

and other things that are good. But all of that progress is being undermined by the other reality on the ground: our failure so far to get security, especially in the Sunni Triangle in Baghdad.

The failure to secure that area has undermined not only the progress we are making but, in my view, has created a circumstance where it becomes incredibly more difficult each day to get the kind of help we need to ultimately succeed. That is to the degree to which other nations, and to the degree to which Iraq is, and the degree to which the American people believe we are not making significant progress is the degree to which they withdraw their support or fail to offer support.

We need international support, we need the continued support of the Iraqi people, and we need the American people prepared to stay the course by spending billions of more dollars in order to get this done and, even more importantly, risking and losing American lives.

I am worried we are going to soon lose the support of the Iraqi people and the vast majority of the American people. The Iraqi people, to make it clear, are happy Saddam Hussein is no longer around. They very much want to build a better future. But the fact is, there has never been a government in Iraq that has been a democracy. In fact, as we all know, Iraq was a nation built and carved out of a colonial circumstance back at the end of the World War I, and it is very difficult, at best, to figure out how to put it together in any form of representative government. It is going to take some time.

So the job, No. 1, here for us, it seems to me, is getting the security right, controlling the streets, securing the weapons depots, getting much better intelligence. But that has always been the No. 1 job we have had, and all other success depends upon that occurring-- better security. It has always been the administration's responsibility, not the Congress's responsibility, to figure out how to get the security on the ground correct.

For some time, I have refrained from any prescriptive outline as to what I think should be done because we cannot dictate that kind of policy in the Senate. That is a matter for Presidents to determine, administrations to lead. But I am very concerned that we are on a downward spiral in terms of the prospects of getting it right in Iraq.

Now, it seems to me, right now, we are not getting the job done. It is not because of the lack of bravery and commitment and steadfastness of American troops or American personnel. These are serious people. These are brave young women and men. It seems to me they have been put in a circumstance that makes it very difficult for them to succeed.

Let me lay out very briefly now, and in greater detail next week, what I believe we need to do to succeed.

The bottom line is pretty simple. Three groups can provide security in Iraq: First, the Iraqis themselves; second, our U.S. troops and the few coalition partners we have with us there; and third, there is the possibility of a real international coalition of military forces.

Over the long term, obviously, the single best way to get security right in Iraq is for the Iraqis to provide that security through indigenous police forces and an indigenous army. That is our goal. Everyone agrees upon that goal. And it is their responsibility, ultimately. They can tell the good guys from the bad guys better than we can. But here is the rub: It takes time to build an effective--an effective--indigenous police force or military force.

When I was in Iraq in June, I was told by our experts there on the ground that it would take 5 years to recruit and train the 75,000 Iraqi police force that was needed. I was told it would take 3 years to recruit and train just 40,000 persons for the Army of Iraq--5 years for the police force and 3 years just to train 40,000 Iraqi soldiers.

We can and we are putting that effort into overdrive. Let's understand the risks that go into putting it into overdrive. The faster we go on our training, the poorer the training and less legitimate the police and army will be. Putting them in charge prematurely is a recipe for failure. They will lose the confidence of the Iraqi people, and we will lose the ability to recruit them to participate in the police force and/or in the military force.

Although it makes sense for us to try to speed up as rapidly as we can the training and the deployment of Iraqis, it is going to take time for it to work. Even on steroids, we are going to need a year at least before we can hand over the keys of security to the Iraqi people, the Iraqi military, and the Iraqi police.

The real question is, What do we do in the meantime? The reason I am so concerned about the meantime is that within a year, before we are even able, under this extended and intensive effort, to speed up the training and turn over the responsibility to the Iraqis, if we continue to have the attitude that pervades in Iraq today, or is beginning to pervade and is beginning to pervade in the United States that this is a difficult, if not hopeless, task, we are unlikely to accomplish the circumstance of being able to put the Iraqis in a position even a year from now. We have to do something now to make things better on the ground.

That brings us to option No. 2, and that is flood the zone with more U.S. troops. Putting in more troops now will allow us to get them out a lot faster. We especially need MPs, special forces, and civil affairs experts.

I listened to my friend John McCain--he and I have been on the same page on this issue for the last 5 months--I listened to him yesterday make a very compelling speech about the need to immediately increase, not decrease, the number of American forces. We understand--John McCain and I and others--that is not a very popular thing to say.

Guys like me who thought the administration went about this war wrongly in the first place are in the dubious position of being in the Chamber suggesting to the Americans who don't like the war that we should put more forces in Iraq immediately in order to take them out totally sooner while the administration announces that in the rotation of American forces through next spring, we are going to rotate troops, but we are also going to draw down the total number of American troops. It is somewhat perverse. Here are Biden and McCain talking about putting in more troops, and the administration is talking about taking out more troops.

The irony here is, we do not have control of the security on the ground. To the extent we don't, for every Chinook that is shot down, for every American who is killed, every Iraqi who is blown up, every Iraqi policeman who goes to a barracks now and is blown up, every Red Cross depot that is exploded--every one of those events undermines the willingness of the United States, the Iraqis, and the world to stay the course and do the job in Iraq.

I might note parenthetically, my real problem is the President has yet to tell the American people why this is so important. He keeps talking about and using the phrase, which is very catchy and very compelling--I am paraphrasing--if we don't fight the terrorists in Baghdad, we will fight them in New York, Washington, Seattle, or wherever. There is some truth to that.

The American people are a lot smarter. If you ask the American people if they think if we succeed in Baghdad or if we succeed in Iraq that is going to end terrorism in the United States, or conversely, whether or not that is the source of terrorism and the threat to the United States, about 60 percent of the American people will say no, they don't think that is it. They understand it. They understand the next terrorist attack, God forbid, in the United States is more likely to come from Somalia, Philippines, Iran, or any number of other countries, than it is going to be from something that has been planned in Baghdad.

That is not to suggest there is not terror in Baghdad; there is. But there are the beginnings of a classic counterinsurgency in Baghdad, aided and abetted by international terrorist operations that are beginning to mobilize in that area.

The real reason we have to succeed in Iraq and the real reason we had better get it straight pretty quickly before we lose the support of the American people is that if we fail to secure the peace in Baghdad and in Iraq, we are going to see a significantly emboldened and radicalized Iran with over 70 million people. We are going to see the prospect of-- that fancy word we use in foreign policy circles--modernity in the Middle East evaporate. The idea that

there are going to be more modern democratic states is going to diminish, not increase. We are going to see, I predict, a reconsideration of the attitude about whether to look East or West in Turkey from Ankara from an Islamic government. We are going to see the circumstances in Pakistan deteriorate because, sure as the devil, if things deteriorate in Iraq and we lose the peace there, we are going to lose it in Afghanistan as well. We will have two failed states.

It is absolutely essential that we succeed, even though most of us--I shouldn't say most; I speak for myself--even though I did not agree with the way the President went about the conduct of this war. The facts are, we are there and we must succeed.

What do we do? We need more civil affairs officers, we need more special forces, and we need more MPs. But this is hard stuff. Our forces are stretched way thin in Iraq already and in Afghanistan. We would have to bring folks back to Iraq for second or third tours, and that is a decision no one wants to make. We have to at least consider it if it would make our troops safer now, increase the chances of success and security in the triangle now being more likely than not because otherwise we just dribble this away.

Short of bringing in more U.S. troops, there are things we can do with our forces to get a better grip on security in the region. We have to deal with those ammo depots. There are more than 600,000 tons of ordnance in Iraq. That is one-third of all the munitions the United States of America possesses. Of that, less than 100,000 tons have been destroyed. There are also thousands of shoulder-fired missiles on the loose in Iraq, one of which probably brought down the helicopter last week. We are offering to buy those missiles back at 500 bucks a pop.

A recent Newsweek or Time Magazine article this week pointed out a young Iraqi came up to an American military person and said: Do you want to buy one of these missiles?

He said: Can you get more of them?

He said: Yes, I can get more of them.

He got a whole truckload of them and brought them back. I think he got paid $40,000 for them. He said he would have brought back more except the truck was not big enough.

We have tens, hundreds, if not thousands, of these shoulder-held missiles on the loose in Iraq. We are paying $500 for the retrieval of each one, and more than 350 have been turned in. The black market price for purchasing those shoulder-held missile launchers is $5,000 a missile. That is kind of hard to compete with.

If we had more forces in place, we could do a better job of guarding those depots, but even without those forces we should be getting Iraqis to fence off the depots, put sensors on the gates, put more UAVs in the air to patrol them.

We have to destroy the weapons faster. Let me acknowledge this is not a simple task. There are hundreds of depots, many of them used, and we have to be very careful in destroying them. We need to protect civilian populations, and we lack enough demolition experts who know how to destroy this stuff without starting a California-size blaze. The administration has to make securing these weapons a top priority. We need to have better intelligence on the ground. It is really hard for our folks to tell the good guys from the bad guys and that is where intelligence comes in.

The Army itself is finding that our intelligence specialists and the reserves trained in civilian affairs and psychological operations do not get the training they need before they are sent to Iraq, so they are not producing very good intelligence.

We do not have enough competent interpreters. We have to get help to rebuild Iraq from their own intelligence network. Here, too, we need a much greater sense of urgency.

The second way to do this is for the United States to do it itself, but it is going to take more personnel and a different kind of personnel to do that. The President has made clear he is not going to do that.

There is another way to buy time until the Iraqis can fend for themselves, and that is to make Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own. We had that opportunity before the war, and we blew it. We had that opportunity after the war, and we blew it. At the end of the summer, when it became clear the security situation was not getting better, the administration decided it had to reach out, but it did not do it very well. The President's speech to the United Nations was not very well received, so for a third time the administration squandered the opportunity to get international support in significant ways.

This is not totally our problem, but for the most part only Americans are being killed. I am convinced we have one last shot to bring the world in to Iraq, and we must do everything in our power to seize that opportunity. This is the meat of what I have to say. I would like to see President Bush not figuratively but literally go to Europe, call a summit and ask for help. We will have to give up more authority in order to get that help, but as I keep saying, and I have been saying for the last 6 months, we should stop treating Iraq as if it is some sort of prize we won. It is not authority I am looking to possess. We would be giving up nothing as it relates to our security interests.

There are three things we can and should do to get more countries invested in Iraq with troops, police, and resources. The first is we should make Iraq a NATO mission. The model we should be using is not Afghanistan but Bosnia, Kosovo. There is a NATO general in charge of all the troops there. It happens to be an American most of the time because America runs NATO; America commands NATO. So it should be a NATO operation.

We are not getting other NATO forces in because they do not want to work alongside of and/or under the command of a totally US-led operation that is not a NATO operation. So we should make Iraq a NATO mission.

General Abizaid would be put in charge of the new NATO command because the way it always works with NATO, as it does with the U.N., whoever is putting up most of the responsibility, putting up most of the money, most of the troops, gets to be the one in charge. So this should be a NATO operation.

Secondly, we should create a high commissioner for Iraq who reports not just to President Bush or the Secretary of Defense, but who reports to an international board of directors, reports to the NATO countries, reports to those countries that are participating. That is what we did in Kosovo. We never lost control of Kosovo, but there was a high commissioner. The high commissioner was not an American. The first one happened to be a Frenchman. The second one was a Dutchman. They reported to all of the capitals that were participating in the reconstruction of Kosovo.

We have a long way to go in Kosovo and a long way to go in Bosnia, but thank God, knock on wood, there are no American casualties. There have not been American casualties as a consequence of hostile fire. People are not killing one another in those two countries. A lot more has to be done. There is no pure democracy there, but there are not a million people in the mountains about to freeze, there are not 250,000 dead, and Americans are not being shot. The place is secure, and we are only paying 15 percent of the price in terms of money and troops. If we want to get the rest of the world into this deal, because--and people say, well, Joe, why would they even contemplate coming in? They are kind of happy to see us bog down.

The reason they would be happy to come in if they had the right environment is because they have as much at stake in a failed state of Iraq as we do. For the Europeans, Iraq is their front yard. It is our backyard. We have to create the environment in which they are willing to participate. So instead of having Mr. Bremer running the operation-- and maybe Mr. Bremer should be the high commissioner. The phrase for that is ``double hatted.'' There has to be a much larger investment by other countries. In return, they have to have much greater participation.

As much as people will not like hearing me say this, the second thing we have to do is change Bremer's function into that of a high commissioner reporting to Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, et cetera. Otherwise, we will not get the kind of participation we need.

Thirdly, we should transform the Iraqi Governing Council into a provisional government with greater sovereign powers. Putting NATO in charge

of security in Iraq offers the possibility of building a truly multilateral force, with far more participation from Europeans, Asians, and neighboring countries. More countries will take part because they would be reporting to the North Atlantic Council, not to the Pentagon.

We are the North Atlantic Council as well. It is a model, as I said, that worked in the Balkans and now is beginning to work in Afghanistan. In the Balkans, for example, many non-NATO countries, including Russia and some Arab states, joined the effort because they were not joining the U.S. effort; they were joining a NATO effort.

The United States, in all of these models I am suggesting--and they are relatively drastic changes--would retain operational control on the ground with General Abizaid as head of this new NATO command. And we retain effective control in NATO, where the United States is the lead player.

Creating an International High Commissioner for Iraq and putting him or her in charge of reconstruction would also attract far more international participation. The recent donors conference in Madrid was a painful example of the price we pay for doing everything ourselves.

When you go into a country unilaterally, you get to handle the peace unilaterally. One we didn't need, the other we do.

Typically, as in the Balkans, the United States covers reconstruction efforts--pays for about 25 percent of the reconstruction costs after a major conflict. By that ratio, the $20 billion, or $18-point-something billion Congress just approved for Iraq reconstruction should have generated, in Madrid, about $60 billion from the rest of the world. Instead, we got $13 billion, of which $9 billion was loans.

As long as the CPA is the sole deciding authority on how Iraq will be rebuilt, other countries will be reluctant to fork over real money. They want a real say in how the money is spent.

Again, look at the model in the Balkans. Look at the model in gulf war No. 1, George the first, the first gulf war. We paid only about 20 percent of the total cost. The rest of the world came in and made up the remainder of that $60 billion.

What are we doing now? Again, in my view, the model we are operating under is broken. We should fix it. Otherwise, we own it all. This is not something we want to own alone.

If we go the route I am suggesting of a special representative who reports to the U.N. Security Council, of which we are a member--either way, that could be Bremer. Bremer could be double-hatted.

In Bosnia, the High Commissioner reports to a special steering committee led by the United States and the EEU. In Kosovo, the Secretary General of the United Nations designated a Special Representative who reports to the U.N. Security Council.

I ask a rhetorical question to any Americans who may be listening. Would it offend you that a high commissioner reporting to the U.N. Security Council was the model we were using? Would you be angry that we didn't own it all, that we weren't the one having to put up all the money, making all the decisions, and taking all the casualties? What is our reluctance?

I said, either way, in a de facto sense, we remain in charge.

Finally, it seems to me we should turn the Iraqi Governing Council into a true provisional government with more sovereign powers. This transfer of sovereignty should not be held hostage to the very important but very complicated and time-consuming process of writing a new constitution.

I happened to hear General Clark this morning on one of the morning news shows. He pointed this out. I thought it was a great example. He said: It took us 7 years to write our Constitution. Actually, it took a little longer. How would we have felt had the French said: We helped liberate you from the British; we are going to stay here as the regional power while you write your Constitution? I am not so sure we would have greeted that with a warm embrace.

So in order for this Iraqi Governing Council, which has not been all that responsible up to now in my view, to be able to function, it seems to me there has to be a transfer of authority that, in fact, should not be held hostage to the constitution having to be written first. It may require some changes in this provisional government to make it more representative, but that is what we should get on with now. Nothing would send a clearer message to the Iraqi people that the future is theirs to build and to inherit, and nothing would make it clearer to them that the enemies of that future are Saddam loyalists and international terrorists who are killing our troops, other than having sovereignty transferred to the Governing Council.

In conclusion, I am suggesting that the model we are operating under be changed.

No. 1, sovereignty, even requiring, if need be, more representation on the Governing Council, but more sovereignty transferred to the Governing Council.

No. 2, a high commissioner, in place of the system we have now, on the Bosnian model, reporting to more than one world capital--that may be Bremer being double-hatted, but it would be a high commissioner--and that to bring in the rest of the world to participate.

No. 3, that the military operation should be under NATO command and NATO responsibility.

I think by doing those things, we communicate several very important, practical, and substantive messages:

No. 1, we, the United States, have no designs on Iraq. We know we don't, but I am not sure the Iraqi people know we don't.

No. 2, it communicates the notion that we are not the sole determining power in that country, that it is not solely our problem, it is the world's problem.

No. 3, that the military operation is not a U.S. operation, it is a NATO operation.

All of those things, I believe, would significantly improve the prospects of success and significantly diminish the prospect that we will carry the entire load for as long as it takes.

I will elaborate on those points in more detail next week. But it seems to me we have to change the model now and begin the process. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that we resume consideration of

I understand there are a number of amendments to be offered. Senator Dorgan has approached me about one he would like to offer. I have no particular preference as to the order in which the amendments come. I understand some Senators wish to make comments before we get into the amending process. I do not see the Senators in the Chamber who told me they planned to make some kind of a statement.

Senator Kohl and I are open for business.

Mr. President, I am thinking we should not plan on any votes until maybe 2 or 2:30. I understand there are some conflicts going on on both sides of the aisle. I would say to the Senator, if he is going to insist on a rollcall vote, we should stack it at that time.

I have a problem with the Senator's amendment in that the offset he cites is from buildings and facilities at the Department of Agriculture. One can say, well, you can always find an extra

$5 million, but that is an account that is committed to lease payments and other contracts that have been established for a while. It is $5 million, which in the scheme of things is not all that much money, but the offset is a bit problematical. We did fund this program at the requested level of $10 million, so it is going above the level.

These are the only comments I have on the amendment. I say to the Senator, if he insists on a rollcall vote, we possibly could set a time some time after 2 or 2:30 where the votes might occur, and I would hope to stack some votes at that time on amendments.

Mr. President, I thank my ranking member for his thoughtful analysis of this and concur. We will be happy to look through the bill and see if we can find an offset and, as he said, if not this year, then in future years, because I do think the issue the Senator from New Mexico has raised is a legitimate one.

Amendment No. 2115 Withdrawn

If the Senator will stay on the floor for a moment longer. If he doesn't talk when he comes back at 2 o'clock, we will accept the amendment now, at 1 o'clock; is that acceptable?

I am always happy to engage in a little humor with my friend. We served together as chairman and ranking member on another subcommittee. I assure him I am always happy to hear him at any time on any subject.

To move the bill forward, I have checked with Senator Kohl and he is fully in support of the Dorgan amendment. I have no objection to it. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.

Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Delaware here. I don't think he will talk about mad cow disease. I am happy to yield what time he might require for his statement. I ask him in advance if he will tell us how much time he will use.

I send the message out to those enjoying lunch, or those who are at the White House, or wherever, that we intend to finish this bill today. The assistant Democratic leader has told me that it is his desire from the other side that we finish this bill today. So I hope Senators who have amendments will come to the floor in a timely fashion. We will do the best we can to deal with the amendments in a timely fashion so we can finish the bill and get it on its way.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. President, in an effort to establish a glidepath for us to bring this particular airplane in for a landing, in consultation with the assistant Democratic leader, I intend to offer a unanimous consent request that would set a time agreement for the debate on the country-of-origin labeling amendment. It would be my intention, once that time has expired, that we would turn to the amendment the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Montana wish to offer. At that time, I would be prepared to attach a time agreement to their offering of that amendment, as well as offering a time agreement to attach to the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. As far as I know, those are the only three amendments remaining that would require a rollcall vote.

So I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I would ask him to support my unanimous consent request that I will now propound, with the commitment on my part that as soon as the time has expired on the country-of-origin labeling amendment, we would then go to his amendment. I think the appropriate thing would be for him to offer his amendment at that time and then go directly into debate of that amendment.

With that explanation, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:30 this afternoon be equally divided for debate on the Daschle amendment No. 2078; provided, that at 4:30 the amendment be temporarily set aside and a vote occur in relation to the amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader; provided further, that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

It is my understanding--if this unanimous consent request is agreed to--that debate on the Daschle amendment will cease at 4:30; we will then address the other amendments--only two of which I know of would require a rollcall vote--and if the majority leader and the Democratic leader so determine, we would then have a series of stacked votes on those three amendments.

Now, if other amendments arise, we can deal with them, but at the moment this is what we believe we have before us.

I thank the assistant Democratic leader and repeat his plea to Senators on our side of the aisle. If there are additional amendments, the time to call them to our attention is rapidly running out.

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask how much time would the Senator like?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho in opposition to the Daschle amendment.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I was interested to have one of the Senators point out that most Senators don't know anything about this because it was done in conference committee, and I certainly qualify as one who didn't know anything about it at the time the conference committee came to the floor. I have had a crash course in country of origin labeling since I became chairman.

I have come to several conclusions, which I will share with the Senate. No. 1, the bill was very badly written. I don't think there is any question about that. The idea of having consumer information with respect to food is a perfectly legitimate idea. It does indeed fit the pattern of consumers, and I have no problem with it. But it is clear, as we get into the details of this, that the bill that originally required it is very badly written. It uses the phrase, for example, ``born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.''

I ask this question: What if you only get two out of three of those? What does that do to you with respect to the piece of beef you are talking about? Suppose it was born in one country, fed in another, and slaughtered in a third? That is not likely, but it is entirely possible. And from which country does it come?

You can say it is clearly not American beef if it was born in Canada, fed at feedlots in the U.S, and for some purpose, shipped to Mexico to be slaughtered, packed, and sent back. But what country is its country of origin? If you say it was born in Canada, it is Canadian.

Why does the law say ``born, raised, and slaughtered''--those three categories--if only one matters?

This is an interesting challenge because we have critters walking around on the range right now that were born somewhere prior to the passage of this law, and on which there are no records, which are going to end up in the food supply as hamburger or pot roast. Who is going to certify where they came from, with no records having been kept? That could be an argument for delaying the implementation of this legislation.

Ultimately, I say with some facetiousness but some seriousness, we are talking about a situation where, in order to comply with the law, every animal has to have a birth certificate and a passport. The passport has to be stamped every time it crosses State lines. Someone called me and said: Bob, we have to pass this because there are all kinds of piglets being born in Canada and then being shipped to the United States. I find that they are shipped to the United States within days after their birth. They are born in Canada, but they are shipped here, truly as piglets, almost within days or weeks after birth, and then the entire processing takes place in the United States. These are American jobs, American facilities that are handling them.

Do we say, because of their birth, they are Canadian, but because they are raised and slaughtered in the United States, does that make them naturalized American citizens or American pork, if you will? The law is badly written, and it clearly needs work or we would not be having this argument. Everyone I hear who opposes the Daschle amendment begins his statement by saying: I am in favor of country-of-origin labeling. But they are opposed to this particular legislation as it stands.

One of the other things that is wrong with it, in my view, is the $10,000-per-violation provision. If I am running a supermarket, and someone says, here is some American beef, and I am potentially liable for a $10,000 violation for every single one of those hamburger patties because each sale is a separate circumstance, I am going to say to the producer: I will not take your beef unless you are prepared to indemnity me against any lawsuits that might come from the Trial Lawyers Association if some consumer activist comes in here and can prove that particular hamburger pattie originated in Canada. I am not going to run that risk.

I think the Senator from Missouri was exactly right when he said the lawyers will be telling their corporate boards: Assume the worst and be as careful as you possibly can. Again, we have critters out there on the range that were born before the law was passed that are going to end up in the meat locker, and how are they going to be labeled? If they are mislabeled, there is a $10,000 fine for every pot roast that comes from those particular cows.

I am not sure the House solution is the right solution. I am not prepared to go to conference saying I will stand with the House language, because I think there is an alternative that might well be worked out, and should be worked out in conference, to say this is how we buy a little more time to deal with the uncertainties we have here, and we hope give the authorizing committee the opportunity to take another bite at the apple and see if they cannot write a country-of- origin labeling law that makes more sense than the present one.

But the Daschle amendment, by its nature, and by the debate and legislative history that is being laid down, is saying you enforce the law exactly as it stands, no changes. For that reason, I intend to vote against the Daschle amendment because I think there needs to be changes, and I think the debate demonstrates there needs to be changes. I hope the Daschle amendment is defeated.

When we get to conference, I hope the House language is modified and we use the vehicle of the conference to try to prod the authorizing committee in the direction of rewriting the basic bill so it can become workable.

One final example of how the statute is written that is unworkable, in my opinion, is that it prohibits the use of an identification mechanism to verify origin of the covered commodity. The Senator talked about putting an ear tag on the cow. That is illegal under this law. He is talking about the expense of it. It is the commonsense way to tag cattle. It is illegal, the way this thing is written.

So, as I say, as I have become acquainted with the whole matter, coming to it completely fresh and completely uneducated as to the issues before I had to look at it, I find myself in favor of the argument that consumers should know from which country the food comes. I have no problem with that at all, but I am convinced the law, as presently written, was so hastily put together that it has serious problems that cannot be fixed by regulations from USDA. I think they are acting in good faith in the regulations they drafted.

The question came up in the hearing when Secretary Veneman was asked: Why are you proposing such a cumbersome regulation?

She said: Because we believe it complies with the law.

She was asked: Whose interpretation tells you this complies with the law?

She said: The United States Department of Justice. The lawyers in the Justice Department looked at the law and said you have to have these burdensome regulations.

So I think there is a solution to this. I think we can work our way through it in time. There is time between now and November for us not to argue about should we implement the law as it stands, or should we prevent the law from going forward as it stands, but do what I think is the commonsense thing, which is simply rewrite the law.

Based on all of the research and evidence that has gone into the drawing of the regulation, we can now do it with a

little more leisure and more intelligence than was done the first time around.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and request that the time for the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the time running on the Daschle amendment be set aside and reserved.

And that we now allow the Senator from North Dakota to proceed with his amendment.

It would be my intention, when Senator Harkin arrives to speak on the Daschle amendment, to ask that the Senator from North Dakota summarize his remarks to allow the Senator from Iowa to speak. I ask if the Senator from North Dakota would agree to do that.

When Senator Harkin arrives--we have been saving time for him--I ask if the Senator from North Dakota would summarize his statement at that point and allow Senator Harkin to make his comments on the Daschle amendment, after which we could then return to the Dorgan amendment.

Could we enter into an agreement that the total time consumed on the Dorgan amendment, without allocation to one side or the other, would be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan?

That is correct, so that anyone who wished to speak would have to get the permission of Senator Dorgan, and that 30 minutes might be interrupted by Senator Harkin's presentation, but the full 30 would be under the control of the Senator from North Dakota.

There has been no objection to this amendment raised on this side. I ask now for a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand now that Senator Leahy has an amendment that he would like to offer and debate. I ask the Senator if he would agree to a half an hour time limit on his amendment.

Yes, half an hour evenly divided.

Mr. President, I am happy to propound a unanimous consent agreement that there be 40 minutes equally divided devoted to the Leahy amendment with no second-degree amendments allowed.

Mr. President, I appreciate the intent of the amendment my colleague from Vermont is offering. It is an attempt to ensure USDA will carry out mandatory conservation programs as Congress intended in the farm bill, as he has explained.

However, the effect of the Leahy amendment would be to freeze the largest conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Program, until a permanent fix for the problem the Senator has outlined has been found.

I am not a member of the authorizing committee, but I am told by many who are this was not the intent of Congress, that they are not anxious to have the Conservation Reserve Program frozen for any reason, for any purpose, so the Leahy amendment is opposed by many members of the authorizing committee, including its chairman, Senator Cochran.

I asked Senator Cochran if he would be interested in speaking on this amendment, and he smiled and very graciously delegated that responsibility to me. I am grateful for the confidence, but I feel less equipped perhaps than the chairman himself might be.

Nonetheless, the effect of the Leahy amendment would mean money would flow out of EQIP, WHIP, FRPP, and other programs to pay for the technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve Program. Many members of the authorizing committee, along with conservation groups and farm groups, agree there is a problem, but not that there is a consensus as to how to solve the problem.

The Senator from Vermont has offered one proposal. But as yet, within the authorizing committee, there is not a great deal of support for that proposal that I am aware of.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I am not arguing, and I do not know anyone who is arguing, that we do not have a problem, nor am I arguing the Congress ought to ignore it or put it off. However, I do believe it is a fix that ought to be crafted in the Senate authorizing committee, the committee which the Senator from Vermont chaired at one point, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The chairman of that committee has also expressed his opposition to this amendment.

Because I am not a member of the committee, I am not equipped to get into all of the details pro and con, other than to stand here as a surrogate for the chairman and say I believe this belongs in the authorizing committee and not on this appropriations bill. For that reason, I intend to vote against it. I understand a large number of members of the Agriculture Committee also intend to vote against it.

I do not have an argument, as I say, with the substance of the problem. The Senator from Vermont is correct when he talks about the fact that we have a problem or the problem needs to be addressed. I am simply opposing the amendment on the grounds this is not the vehicle with which to do it, and the particular approach he has adopted does not enjoy a consensus that would justify us going forward at this particular time.

I would hope he would be able to craft a solution that would enjoy that kind of consensus, and that we could return to this issue as a Senate and get it resolved at some point in the future.

Mr. President, we are currently drawing up a unanimous consent request that would lock down the time. Does the Senator from Vermont yield back the remainder of his time?

The Senator from Utah is willing to yield back the remainder of the time in opposition to the Senator's amendment. We have an amendment that will be offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania on which it is my intention to have a voice vote and accept. We are getting the exact language, but it is my intention that the Senator from Pennsylvania be given 15 minutes.

I would ask if Senator Harkin is still planning to come over to take his 15 minutes of debate on the Daschle amendment. If he is, that would mean we could vote on the Leahy amendment and the Daschle amendment and then on final passage around 5:30.

It is my understanding that he does as well. We are working all of that out.

We will work that out in a way that will protect every Senator's rights. But to move us along now, time having been yielded back on the Leahy amendment, I would ask that the Chair recognize the Senator from Pennsylvania for 15 minutes to lay down his amendment. During that 15-minute period, we will codify all of these various agreements and bring that unanimous consent request forward.

It is my intention.

It was my intention to vote on Leahy first.

Then I have some perfecting amendments and then final passage.

The Senator has summarized the situation very well, as he always does. I hope the Senate will agree to that unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask a further modification: That I be given an additional 5 minutes, if necessary, for a response.

Madam President, I will respond to the Senator by telling him I am in favor of his amendment and will carry that attitude into conference and do the best I can to see to it that it survives.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I believe that, in the interest of time, a voice vote would be sufficient. I think we should have a voice vote rather than just accept the amendment by unanimous consent, so that the record does show that a formal vote took place.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

As I understand it, Senator Harkin still has 10 minutes to speak on the Daschle amendment. Is that correct?

Yes, the two votes will be stacked. We have reserved 10 minutes for the Senator from Iowa to speak on the Leahy amendment and 10 minutes for him to speak on the Daschle amendment. If he wishes to yield back his 10 minutes on the Daschle amendment, there will be no objection.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy and kind words. I must now confess error. When we entered into the unanimous consent agreement, we inadvertently left off an opportunity for the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to offer an amendment. I apologize to Senator Cochran for that oversight.

I ask unanimous consent that an additional 10 minutes be set aside, equally divided, between Senator Cochran and any opponents to his amendment, to be taken care of before we proceed to the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to allow Senator Cochran to come to the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Senator Cochran is in the cloakroom and will be coming on to the floor momentarily. I simply want to once again apologize to him for our inadvertence in leaving his amendment off the list. I appreciate the indulgence of Senators to have this additional 5 to 10 minutes for the opportunity to dispose of this particular amendment.

Madam President, I ask for a voice vote.

Madam President, I understand that I had 5 minutes allocated to me under the unanimous consent agreement. I am prepared to yield that back and proceed to a vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it is my understanding that all time has been yielded. We are, therefore, ready to vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 2119

Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that the remaining two votes in this series, this one and the vote on final passage, be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I yield back all of the remaining time.

Mr. President, I move to table the Daschle amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise also to talk a little bit about country-of-origin labeling. I guess I ought to tell the Senate, first, why I am inflicting my opinions on this subject on the Senate.

I have the honor of chairing the Subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection, and Product Promotion of the Agriculture Committee. I was not told, when I was given that assignment, that it included supervising the implementation of the country-of-origin labeling law, a law the Congress passed before I was here and on which I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion.

I know feelings run high regarding that law. I have had the opportunity to study the issue, and I have tried, from the beginning, to be an honest broker in this whole process, just to try to see that this law--which was passed before I got here and which is part of the law now--is implemented in a way that accomplishes what it was originally intended to accomplish.

In the course of doing that, I have, of course, read that statute. I have had a chance to talk to several of the Senators who were instrumental in writing it. It is pretty clear, from the statute, the gist of what the Congress intended. It is like reading an essay quickly; you sort of get the gist of it.

The problem I will get to in a minute is, when you go into the details of it, a lot of it is rather vague. That is going to raise problems in the implementation unless we do something. But I think the gist of it is pretty clear. I am going to restrict my remarks to beef even though, of course, the bill covers a whole wide range of different products. But for simplicity's sake, I will talk about beef.

From the bill, it is pretty clearly the intention is that all beef be labeled, that there be specific labels for American beef, that we begin to control what people are calling American beef.

The legislation references and, in some respects, in some sense, seems to want to be modeled on some existing labeling programs. But, as I will say in a minute, it does not make clear exactly what the legislation is. It puts the burden of compliance on the retailers, which is very significant in getting us where we are now with the implementation of it.

The legislation seems to contemplate that it be enforceable by the Department with some kind of a grace period. There is a section in the legislation relating to the grace period.

So if you read the legislation, it seems to me the gist of it, of what it intended, is pretty clear. I think what I have said is consistent with the conversations I have had with Senators who were very responsible and have acted in good faith from the beginning in writing this legislation and are now interested in its implementation.

The problem is, the legislation is vague in a lot of respects. It imposes a very serious potential liability on people, but in certain crucial aspects--in fact, in a lot of crucial aspects--it is really not clear exactly what they have to do to avoid that liability.

It is not that anybody intended the vagueness. I know what it is like when you are in the middle of a conference committee and trying to come up with legislation under all the pressures of time and the need to compromise and

to check with a bunch of different people. It is hard to do something that has 100 percent precision under those circumstances.

Let me go through some of the respects in which I think the legislation is a little difficult to understand.

As I said before, the statute lists certain model programs, and references them, such as the Florida labeling statute. It does not make clear, however, whether those programs are safe harbors--in other words, whether the people who are supposed to comply with this and who do it in a way that those programs operate, are safe from liability.

As a matter of fact, the suggestion in the legislation is it is reasonably clear they are probably not safe because the legislation seems to require things that are not in some of these model programs. But if those models are not safe harbors, then what are they? What purpose do they really have? It is just not clear from the statute.

The statute makes clear, it seems to me, that you can only call something American beef if that beef was born, raised, and processed in the United States. I think it is pretty clear that was one of the major purposes of the statute. But it does not say what the label ought to say, and it really addresses in no respect whatsoever what you should put on the label for beef that you do not want to claim was born, raised, and processed in the United States. It requires that foreign beef, within the meaning of the statute, be labeled, but it gives no clue whatsoever as to what that label ought to say--again, even given the fact that the statute does assign substantial liability if you get it wrong.

So the intent is pretty clear, with regard to American beef, that it has to be born, raised, and processed in the United States if you want to call it American beef. It does not say exactly what that label should say and is very unclear and supplies really no guidance as to what the label should say if you do not want to call it American beef.

The statute prohibits a mandatory tracing system in order to determine whether a label is correct. It says you cannot have a mandatory tracing system, but at the same time it requires that there be some kind of verification system. It certainly is not clear, I think, to anybody how we can have a mandatory verification system that does not include a mandatory tracing system. Now, I am not saying it is impossible; I am saying it is not clear.

Again, there are very substantial liabilities for people who make the best guess they can from the statute and then get it wrong. The statute says the Department of Agriculture can enforce it at up to about $10,000, potentially, per violation. It does not say whether that is the exclusive means of enforcement.

The statute is not clear whether there is some private cause of action, whether a class action in State or Federal court could be brought against a retailer that does have the burden of compliance that fails in some respect to comply with the statute.

The statute does not say how this statute, the country-of-origin labeling law, relates to other labeling statutes. So it is not clear whether a violation of the country-of-origin labeling law is also a violation, for example, of the food safety laws or the other labeling laws or consumer protection laws or how that is going to relate to State consumer protection laws.

I do not raise these issues as if this were some kind of a law school exam. I raise them because it is very important to understand this is a statute that people are going to have to follow regardless of what the regulations say, at least within limits.

Let me go on to the next point because I think it is essential we make it in order to focus exactly on where we are now. We can concede, again, the good faith of both sides on this. We certainly can concede the good faith and intentions of the Senators who drafted this bill and the Congress that passed it.

What we know is that the statute unquestionably does this. It imposes a labeling requirement with substantial liability for retailers, the last business organization to handle the food before consumers get it, if they violate that labeling requirement.

What I want to suggest to the Senate is that what the regulations say, while, of course, it is important because it bears on how the statute might be interpreted, is a lot less important in determining how this is practically going to be construed and implemented than what the companies, the chief retailers in the country think, as their lawyers examine this law. How this law is implemented is going to depend on the advice the general counsel for Wal-Mart and Safeway and Giant give their executives as they consider how to implement this law.

I have the documents. I have talked to people in this position. Given the vagueness in the law and the potential liability in the law, they are advising their clients to take the most conservative position possible in order to protect themselves against the worst case scenario for liability. They are not going to take a risk of some big class action lawsuit against them or some huge investigation by the Department of Agriculture with all the attendant negative publicity because they have taken a chance and interpreted this law as requiring less than perhaps it would require.

This is why we are hearing back--all of us who have farm State constituents, and many who don't--from people in the production chain, in the distribution chain of food who are saying: This law is going to require us to do this and this and impose this cost and take that measure, not necessarily because of what was originally intended, but because the confusing aspects of the statute give rise to vagueness that creates the potential for liability that these companies are simply not going to risk. They are going to do what they have to do to protect themselves. Whatever it costs, they are going to do it and pass it down the production chain. That is my concern, that we end up, as a result of unintended vagueness in the law--I will concede to the Senate--passing these costs of production down where eventually they will settle on the weakest competitors in the food chain, which is, of course, the producers.

So my cattlemen and yours may end up having to bear all these extra costs that are generated because of these concerns, and we end up hurting the very people, along with consumers, we are trying to help in passing this law.

What are some of the things the retailers may do? We have been collecting a lot of information. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

This is from IBP. They are packers. They are reporting what their major retail customers are notifying them that they have to do. Here is what the retail customers want us to do. I quote:

Stick all covered commodities with country of origin

information that complies with the law and USDA regulations.

Provide enough signage to ensure one sign for each retail

display in every shipment of product that cannot bear a

label.

Contract to maintain records and a verifiable audit trail

to establish the accuracy of the country of origin

information that retailers receive from packers for covered

commodities.

I will not read the whole letter. But suffice it to say, the major retailers are going to reorganize their inventory and distribution lines so they can keep separate these different kinds of beef. That is going to generate cost. They are going to require that as much beef as possible be prepackaged. This is interesting. It may result, unfortunately, in their laying off some meat cutters and people on the premises of the store who have been cutting meat fresh there. They are going to get it prepackaged because then they have to do as little as possible at the store. That may tend to encourage vertical integration in the production chain, which is the opposite of what we want.

They are going to set up an audit system and require packers to have software and other kinds of records that will network into the retailers systems so they can trace back. And with every piece of meat they have in the counter, they are going to want to be able to trace that back to a particular cow so they can protect themselves in the event they are audited.

Then, of course, this will domino down the line of production. The packers are going to have to have this software. They are going to reorganize some of their warehousing and inventory facilities. The auction barns and feedlots are going to have to have software which is compliant with this whole system. I visited auction barns, and they showed me how they are going to have to change where the cows are. They are going to tell the producers that they are going to have to be able to be compliant and network into their systems of verification and tracing when they bring cows to the auction barns to sell.

I don't think we intended any of this. As I read the statute, I can't even stand here and tell you that the statute suggests that is absolutely the intention. But that is a possible, plausible interpretation of it. Even if the regulation said something entirely different, I don't think it would make any difference.

The statute is what imposes the liability. The statute is supreme over the regulation. And the lawyers for these various retailers who are interpreting this are going to look first and foremost at the statute. They are going to act in a manner that protects their clients from the downside risk of substantial liability that arises because of certain unintended but, I think, nevertheless very real vagaries and vagueness in the law.

What are we left with? We can allow this process to play itself out, basically not do anything as the effective date of the act approaches, which is October of next year. It is already having an impact because people are raising cattle right now that they are going to sell after October of next year and that they are going to have to be able to trace back. That is the reason we are beginning to hear the lead edges of the concerns about this because they don't know what they are supposed to do to comply with the law. They are concerned they may have to do all these things I have talked about.

We can allow it to play itself out, kind of like a tragic play that you watch and just hope for a surprise good ending, and maybe we will get one. Maybe all this will sort itself out.

We can repeal the law and replace it with something that is voluntary. I know that is what a lot of people want to do. That is probably what a lot of people in the House want to do. I am going to say in candor to the Senate that my evaluation of the risk here is such that I would prefer at this stage, if the only two choices are no mandatory law or the law we have now with the downside risks we have now, I would rather have no mandatory law.

But there is a third alternative. We can fix the law. We don't have to end it. We can mend it. We can go in and in the same good faith in which this law was passed and the same good faith in which Senators have spoken on the floor today, and look at the areas that have given rise to uncertainty within the retailing community and the whole rest of the chain of production of this food, all the way down to the producers we are trying to help, and we can say: We can make our intention clear; we can give you the level of certainty you need to be able to implement this law and comply with this law in the manner that we all are saying now we originally intended.

The law we passed in the farm bill doesn't have to be our final statement on the matter. We don't have to be getting into these kinds of arguments. That is a third alternative in which I would be very happy to participate.

I will say, I don't intend to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution--not because I don't understand the frustration that has led up to it; not because I necessarily disagree with what I have heard on the Senate floor about the motives that may have been working in the House; not because I am against, personally, a mandatory country-of- origin labeling law; not because, as the Senator from Nevada said, I am against what he was saying about consumers knowing where their food comes from. Maybe there is a good niche market available. Maybe if we can do this in a way that works, consumers will look at this and they will want to buy that American beef and it will help our producers. That would be great.

But it does seem to me now that nobody is really satisfied with these regulations. Some people believe the regulations are an accurate reflection of the law, and they are not satisfied with the law. But they don't like the fact that the regulations are the way they are.

Then there are people who think the regulations are not an accurate reflection of the law, and they don't like the regulations the way they are. So it does seem to me that maybe the House

has done the right thing--albeit, perhaps, for the wrong reason--in saying: Let's not implement the regulations.

I will say, if the House feels that not implementing the regulations means the law isn't going to go into effect, they need to consult some different lawyers. That law reads that the effective date is in October of next year. Whether there are regulations or not, that liability is going into effect then. If we have a level of discomfort, as I do at this stage, with how the statute reads, we better do something about it in time so the people we are trying to help will enjoy the benefits of the law we passed 2 years ago.

Mr. President, it has been an experience for me to investigate and oversee this implementation. At this point I will say I stand ready to work with anybody on either side in trying to make certain we get a result that is at least acceptable and, I hope, is good for our producers. In my discussions with Senators, I have come to have a great deal of respect for their sincerity and passion on this issue. I don't see, given that, why we cannot come up with something that will work better for everybody than what we have now.

With that, I will yield.

Yes.

I appreciate the Senator's question. I am happy to answer him in complete candor. I have not had the capacity in my subcommittee and in my office to be able to quantify what the costs are. I do know that actors in the chain of production, who I don't think have a big ax to grind--I am not talking about the packers here--have told me they are very concerned with what they are going to have to do to comply with this. It is chiefly the retailers, but not just them; also auction barns, and I have had producer organizations come; and I think their sense is that the thing that we are basically intending--as the Senator is saying, let consumers know where the beef comes from--is something we probably could handle at an affordable level.

But there is enough uncertainty in this, which they are not willing to risk, and the Senator can understand that they don't want to face-- or be the ones at risk of facing a huge liability if they get it wrong. So it is reasonable to believe that the potential cost of this is very substantial. I can say that to the Senator. I cannot say it is $2 billion or half a billion. I just cannot tell the Senator that.

I have. I have heard a number of things from retailers. One chain told me they are probably going to have to end up laying off many meatcutters because more of it will be prepackaged. I mentioned that in my remarks. I have retailers telling me they are going to advertise less for beef.

One fellow said: I don't want a lot of beef if I have this potential liability. I will simply advertise more for chicken. It will hurt the smaller stores in the more rural areas, and the bigger unionized stores to some extent. In fairness to the Senators who supported this, and in good faith still support it, I want to say a lot depends on how exactly these companies interpret the law and what risk level they are willing to go to.

My concern as a lawyer--and I think the Senator would probably agree--is that their general counselors are going to say: We are not going to take a chance. Tell everybody all up and down the production chain, this is what we want from them, and they are going to have to bear the cost.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I was trying to hear that. I ask for at least 10 minutes on the Leahy amendment and 10 minutes on the Daschle amendment. I may not take it all.

I understand I am allowed 10 minutes to speak on the Leahy amendment.

Madam President, first, I commend the Senator from Vermont for raising the issue of funding for technical assistance for farm bill conservation programs. The technical assistance, as provided by the staff of the Natural Resource Conservation Service and other qualified providers such as engineers or agronomists, includes planning, designing, construction and implementation of conservation practices on agricultural land--this assistance is essential to allow farmers, ranchers, and landowners to carry out conservation practices.

This amendment, as I understand it, would cut off funding for technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.

Cutting off technical assistance would effectively preclude new enrollments in the CRP program, including the continuous CRP and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, otherwise known as CREP, thus hurting the environment, wildlife, and land owners.

I only have 10 minutes. I will have to ask for more time if I can.

I appreciate the explanation of the Senator from Vermont. As I understand it, I ask the Senator from Vermont, does this not prevent the transfer of money from donor programs?

I could be wrong. I want to understand, if I can make a few more comments, and let the Senator from Vermont see if this is a correct interpretation. Prior to the passage of the farm bill in 2002, there was a shortage of technical assistance funding because the 1996 farm bill limited technical assistance funding to that amount available under section 11 of the CCC. That was $56 million a year. This became known as the section 11 cap.

The 2002 farm bill corrected this problem by providing an alternative source for technical assistance funds. What we did was we included a provision in the conservation title of the farm bill that technical assistance funding would come directly from the funds provided for each conservation program.

This approach was not novel or untested. Congress relied on similar language in the 1996 farm bill providing funding for technical assistance for the EQIP program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, directly from EQIP funds and outside the section 11 cap. We adopted this approach for all environmental programs to ensure there would be adequate funding for technical assistance. We all agreed on that approach. That is in the 2002 farm bill.

Soon after the passage of the farm bill, we got a big shock from the Bush administration because they announced that the section 11 cap still applied, despite the language we had put in the farm bill.

Despite the opinion of Nancy Bryson, General Counsel at USDA, and despite the opinion of the GAO, the General Accounting Office, that the 2002 farm bill provided new authority for funding technical assistance, not subject to the section 11 cap, the White House, through OMB and then the Department of Justice, decided that the farm bill's conservation program funds could not be used for technical assistance because they were limited to the section 11 cap, thereby, largely blocking implementation of the conservation programs.

We attempted to fix this in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. As a result, funds from the dollar-limited conservation programs are now used to pay for technical assistance for all the conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, which are acreage limited programs.

Senator Leahy, I believe, is correct that we now have a situation in which money that the farm bill provided for some conservation programs is being diverted to pay for technical assistance for others. Because of this problem, there is less conservation money going to producers and landowners than was intended or provided in the farm bill.

In fiscal year 2003, almost $91 million in conservation funds were lost because that amount of money was taken from some programs and used to provide technical assistance for other programs. If the White House had implemented the farm bill as intended and as we got the opinion from the general counsel at USDA, this would not have happened.

However, two wrongs don't make a right, and my problem, as I understand it, with the Leahy amendment--and I stand to be corrected by the author of the amendment--is that what would happen under this amendment is it would effectively mean that under the Conservation Reserve Program, we would not be able to enroll any new land. We would not be able to continue the continuous sign-up in the CRP program. We would not be able to continue the agreements we have in the CREP, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

That is why, as I understand the Senator's amendment, it says that the donor programs are not available for technical assistance funds for CRP, but doesn't provide an alternative source.

I ask the Senator from Vermont, does his amendment take away the section 11 cap? If we do away with the section 11 cap unequivocally and we go back to what we provided in the 2002 farm bill, then maybe the Senator's amendment is fine. That is not the way I read it.

I yield to the Senator to correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with the Senator that USDA should have followed the farm bill and the White House simply choose not to do so.

Madam President, I say to the Senator from Vermont that we go back to CCC, but the section 11 cap still applies and there would be no funding technical assistance for CRP. The Senator has to know that under the Senator's amendment, new enrollments for CRP will effectively come to an end.

Madam President, I ask for at least 5 more minutes, after yielding time.

Madam President, I understand what the Senator is doing, but two wrongs do not make a right. Now, if the Senator wants to have an amendment that would lift the section 11 cap, or that would clearly spell out that the farm bill once again in 2002--what we did--bypassed the section 11 cap, that is fine.

As I understand it, as I read his amendment, as my staff has informed me, as I have looked at it, that is not what the amendment does. The amendment simply, as the Senator said, builds firewalls. By building firewalls, that goes against what we did in the 2003 omnibus bill, because in the omnibus bill we provided for a mechanism that said we could then use these funds for technical assistance, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Again, I say that the Senator from Vermont is correct in that we have a

situation in which money that the farm bill provided for some conservation programs is being diverted to pay for technical assistance for others. I am all for changing that but not in the way the Senator wants, because the way the Senator wants effectively cuts off signing up for the CRP program.

I am a big supporter of the EQIP program, and FPP and WHIP and GRP. That is fine, and they should be fully funded, as they were in our farm bill, but we cannot abandon the CRP program. That is exactly what the effect of this amendment would do.

Those of us from those States in which we have the CRP program or the CRP program in which we have continuous signup, this would take money away from this very effective program. Almost all states have land enrolled in CRP and there are 23 states that have CREPs--new enrollments in those and continuous CRP would come to a halt.

We could solve this problem of TA funding for CRP and WRP for, according to estimates from USDA, $100 million a year or for $300 million from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2006. Three hundred million dollars would take care of the whole thing. Yet the administration will not provide this money at all.

The President requested nearly $900 million this year for Iraq to have funds for irrigation equipment and the protection of marshlands in the Supplemental. So we have $900 million to go to Iraq for irrigation equipment and protection of marshlands, and $300 million would take care of our entire country in terms of the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program for three years.

There are ways of fixing this, I say to my friend from Vermont, and ways that we agreed upon in the farm bill. The Senator from Vermont and I were together on the farm bill. We agreed on how to do this, but this is not the way to do it now.

I would join with the Senator in any kind of an amendment to get rid of the section 11 cap. That is the answer right there, get rid of the section 11 cap.

We effectively did that in the farm bill. The administration says no. Well, an amendment to that line would do that.

In closing, the major wildlife groups in this country, from Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, National Audubon Society, Pheasants Forever, the Wildlife Society, and Wildlife Management Institute do not support this amendment. They sent a letter to both Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl that said they can't support this amendment if it would have a chilling effect on CRP.

Again, I find myself in a strange position because in many ways I agree with the Senator from Vermont. He is right in what he is trying to do in terms of saying that we have to have more funding for technical assistance, but not in this manner because it would effectively stop the CRP program.

I am sorry. I did not realize the parliamentary situation. Are these two votes going to be lumped together?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the 2002 farm bill included an important program, known as country-of-origin labeling, that adds value to farm products and gives consumers more information about the origin of foods they buy for their families. Opponents of the law have used scare tactics and false information in an attempt to water down or overturn this important program.

Unfortunately, the opponents of the law persuaded the House Appropriations agricultural subcommittee to cancel funding to carry out this program as it applies to labeling for meat. This is the wrong course. USDA needs the funding to continue the rule making process so the program is workable as it was intended by the farm bill.

A large number of other countries have country-of-origin labeling. The General Accounting Office has found that of the 57 U.S. trading partners, 48 require country-of-origin labeling for one or more of the commodities covered by our country-of-origin labeling law.

In this country, over 135 organizations, from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America--broad support--support country-of-origin labeling for meat. These organizations represent the will of producers and consumers across our country.

Several academic studies in the last year have examined the benefits of country-of-origin labeling for meat. For example, the International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center at the University of Florida found that the benefits of labeling beef clearly outweighed the costs. Research by Colorado State University found that consumers were willing to pay an 11-percent premium on steak and a 24-percent premium for country-of-origin labeling on hamburger.

This research reflects the desire for country-of-origin labeling of meat. Country-of-origin labeling for meat is law. It is law right now. It became law when President Bush signed the 2002 farm bill. Whether or not the Agriculture appropriations bill funds the program, the law still requires meat to be labeled. Removing funding essentially creates a situation where retailers will still be legally required to label meat but USDA will have no funding to provide oversight and work out in a meaningful manner any problems that exist within the meat-labeling regulations.

Then again next year the same debate will come before Congress, asking us to remove funding, asking us to delay country-of-origin labeling for meat for another year. This is just a 1-year bill. The law is already there on the books. Removing funding as the House Appropriations Committee did does not solve any problems. It only creates more problems down the road for the program that is already in the law and that would provide consumers the information they want.

Madam President, it was interesting that in the House appropriations bill, they cut out funding for country-of-origin labeling for meat but, guess what, they left the money in there for country-of-origin labeling for peanuts. They

left the money in there for country-of-origin labeling for fish. They left the money for country-of-origin labeling in there for vegetables. They left the money for country-of-origin labeling in there for fruit. But not meat.

Right away you have to ask yourself a question: What is this all about? Why would they say consumers ought to have the right to know where their fish comes from, but not their meat? Why would they say consumers ought to have the right to know where their peanuts come from, but not their meat?

The fact is, a few in this country--a few, and I mean a few--are trying to overcome in the appropriations process what they could not succeed in doing when we passed the farm bill. They were there. They testified. They had their proposals. They didn't want country-of-origin labeling. We voted on it and it was passed in the House, it was passed in the Senate, it was kept in conference, and the President signed it. Now they are attempting to undo that through the appropriations process. That is why we have to speak loudly and clearly that we want to make sure the law is carried forward.

As I pointed out, even if you don't fund it, retailers will still have to abide by the law. They will still have to give us country-of- origin labeling on meat. It just means the Department of Agriculture will not be able to help them clear up any confusion that may arise. That is the worst possible position in which we could put our retailers. We ought to give them the assistance, the help, the support, the advice, the consultation the Department of Agriculture should do to implement this law.

Before I close, I want to take a moment to say I am pleased the Senate supported the amendment by Senators Dorgan and Burns, which I cosponsored, to increase the funding level of the Rural Broadband Loan Program. I worked to include the loan program in the 2002 farm bill to help bring high-speed Internet to rural farm communities across the country.

Since its launch, there have been more than $1 billion in loan applications to build the broadband infrastructure. This extra funding will go a long way to ensure this program remains strong and can provide the resources needed to ensure rural America keeps faith with its urban neighbors in the 21st century.

In closing, I don't know if I will have time to speak again on the bill. I think we are coming close to voting. First, let me commend the chairman and ranking member for putting together a great Agriculture appropriations bill. I thank them for accepting the rural broadband provisions, as well as many other very good provisions. If we can past the amendment that was just offered here, I think we will have a tremendous Agriculture appropriations bill.

I commend the chairman and commend the ranking member for the excellent job they have done on this bill.

I yield the floor.