Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 1 minute to the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me ask the Democratic Senator in the Chamber if that is enough time for them to finish. We need to be through at 12:15.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask what the allocation of time is.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Charlye O. Farris was licensed to practice law by the State of Texas on November 12, 1953. She was the first African American woman licensed to practice law in Texas. On July 7, 1954, when Charlye O. Farris became a special county judge in Wichita County, TX, she became the first African American to serve in the South as a judge in any capacity since Reconstruction. Charlye O. Farris is a native of Wichita Falls, TX, and a graduate of Booker T. Washington High School and Prairie View A&M College. She earned her Bachelor of Laws degree from Howard University in May, 1953, and has overcome significant and numerous barriers in order to practice law. She is the recipient of the Gertrude E. Rush Award of the National Bar Association for her service and achievements as an African American lawyer. Charlye O. Farris received the Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award from the Commission on Women in the Profession of the American Bar Association, which recognizes women who have excelled in the legal profession and helped pave the way for other women entering the field. Her accomplishments as a woman, African American, lawyer, and community leader have made her a role model for countless Texans. Senator John Cornyn and I congratulate Charlye O. Farris on the occasion of her 50th anniversary as a lawyer practicing in Texas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the senior Senator from Alaska.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to implementing the mandatory country-of-origin labeling, also known as COOL. This Legisition would devastate the U.S. meat industry, cost thousands of American jobs and raise food prices for the customers the law purports to benefit. The USDA recently found the U.S. livestock industry would incur significannt costs and virtually no benefits from mandatory COOL. It concluded there was little evidence that mandatory country-of-origin labeling would lead to an increase in demand for commodities bearing the U.S. label, nor would it result in increased food safety. Rather, it found that COOL would impose up to $4 billion on ag industries in the first year and up to $600 million annually after the program had been in place for a decade. Inevitably, these costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the supermarket. A recent Texas A&M University study estimated that changes brought about by mandatory country-of-origin labeling would cost nearly 2,000 jobs in south Texas alone. Mandatory COOL would force many small producers with fewer and than 50 head of cattle out of business entirely. This would be a devastating blow just when our economy is beginning to show signs of recovery. In addition to the impact on consumers and the American meat industry, the imposition of COOL raises serious trade ramifications that could invite retaliation from important trade partners. In the midst of negotiating free and fair trade agreements with nations around the globe, imposing severe restrictions such as COOL hamper our efforts to break down trade barriers and grow the global economy. No one disputes that food safety is critical. But both supporters and opponents of COOL have stated this is a marketing issue and not one of food safety. When questioned by Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas in a recent House Agriculture hearing on this issue, every witness, including supporters such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union agreed COOL should not be associated with food safety, but with the marketing of agriculture products. U.S. agricultural industries provide the highest quality products in the world. Congressional actions should help, not hinder, their efforts. Imposing severe, costly restrictions that amount to nothing more than a marketing ploy is not the way to proceed. I urge my colleagues to vote against the sense-of-the-Senate amendment and commit to a thoughtful and thorough debate on this important issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I would like to allocate up to 5 minutes to Senator Craig, up to 10 minutes to Senator Cochran, and the remaining time to Senator Santorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, there is an additional 5 minutes on our side. How much time remains on our side with the additional 5 minutes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think it is very important that all of us look for ways to create jobs. We are very concerned about jobs not keeping up with the recovery. That is why we are trying to pass an energy bill. It is why we are trying to make sure we keep the tax cuts so that people will spend the money they have. That is why we have seen an increase in the value of the stock market. It is very important that we continue to focus on jobs. And I assure you, the President and the Congress are going to do that. Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I urge this amendment be adopted. I think Senator Brownback has been very careful in what he has taken out of the measure. It does mirror pretty much what the House did. The lion's share of the $20 billion is going to be there. But I think Congress has the right to prioritize, and I think these are better priorities. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a modified version of my amendment No. 1877 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I send up a modified amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be brief. The sense of the Senate says we support helping Iraq as it builds a new democracy and believe we need to finish what we have started there and in Afghanistan. It is critical that this reconstruction effort have a multilateral approach, that our allies would help us in the war on terrorism, because our allies are reaping the benefits of this war on terrorism. No one will be free in the world if we lose the war on terrorism. It is essential we have all of the support we need to finish this job. So we ask the administration to continue to seek commitments during the donors conference and afterward. It encourages the President to provide aid in a way that promotes economic growth in Iraq and limits the long-term cost to our taxpayers. The President is in the best position to determine how to accomplish this, and we must support him in every way. That is my amendment, my sense of the Senate. I hope we can support it and vote for it.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I am happy to work within the system. I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from Louisiana wishes to reserve her time after Senator McConnell, I am going to yield up to 10 minutes to Senator McConnell, after which, she can speak; is that acceptable?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what I will do is allow the Senator from Louisiana to have the 2 minutes or the minority side to have the 2 minutes after Senator McConnell, but then I am going to yield, because we have the last 30 minutes, to the Senator from Montana. The Senator from Louisiana can take the time now or take it after Senator McConnell.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Louisiana wish to finish with the 2 minutes?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the two sides?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the entire time to the Senator from Montana.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will proceed. If a Member of the other side comes, I will be happy to yield to them under their time. But I will start with the majority time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that our side took 3 minutes early. So how much time is remaining on the other side?